Date of Decision: January 27, 2025
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Massage Therapist
Field: Therapeutic Massage and Bodywork
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met
- Judging the Work of Others (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv)): The Director accepted that the petitioner met this criterion by providing evidence of evaluating the work of others.
Criteria Not Met
- Membership in Associations (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii)): Petitioner attempted to claim membership on appeal through a certificate from the National Federation of Massage Therapists. AAO found that this was not raised before the Director and could not be introduced for the first time on appeal. Even if considered, no evidence showed that membership required outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v)): Petitioner claimed an innovative massage method blending Thai and modern therapeutic techniques. AAO held that petitioner did not demonstrate originality or field-wide impact, as evidence lacked corroboration of adoption or recognition in the broader field. Submission lacked proper labeling, explanation, and clear connection between evidence and claimed significance.
- High Salary or Significantly High Remuneration (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix)): Petitioner submitted evidence of 2022 earnings. Director found comparative salary data irrelevant as it reflected different professions. AAO agreed that evidence did not establish a high salary relative to others in the same field.
- Leading or Critical Role (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii)): Claimed on appeal but not necessary to address since petitioner failed to meet the required three criteria.
Key Points from the Decision
- Improperly Raised Claims: Membership criterion introduced for the first time on appeal was rejected.
- Unsubstantiated Contributions: Evidence of massage methodology lacked corroboration or measurable field impact.
- Salary Data Deficient: Comparative salary data did not reflect similarly situated professionals.
- Threshold Not Met: With only one criterion satisfied, petitioner could not advance to the merits determination.
Final Merits Determination
The AAO did not conduct a final merits determination. The petition was denied because the petitioner did not establish three regulatory criteria.
Supporting Documentation
- Judging Evidence: Proof of evaluating peers in the massage field (accepted).
- Membership Evidence: Certificate from the National Federation of Massage Therapists (not qualifying).
- Contribution Evidence: Claims of adaptive massage techniques, lacking corroboration.
- Salary Evidence: Documentation of earnings and comparative data (not qualifying).
- Leadership Evidence: Claimed but not analyzed due to failure to meet threshold.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal dismissed.
Reasoning: Petitioner met only one criterion (judging). Claims for membership, contributions, leadership, and salary did not meet the regulatory standards.
