Date of Decision: December 1, 2020
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Field of Expertise: Business Consulting
Petitioner Information
Profession: Principal Business Consultant
Field: Business Consulting
Nationality: [Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
None specified in the document.
Criteria Not Met:
Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards: The Petitioner did not provide evidence of receiving nationally or internationally recognized awards, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i).
Published Material: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of published material about him in major media, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii).
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that his contributions were of major significance in the field, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v).
Participation as a Judge: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that he participated as a judge of the work of others in the field, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv).
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The Petitioner did not provide evidence of authorship of scholarly articles in the field, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi).
Leading or Critical Role: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that he performed in a leading or critical role for organizations with a distinguished reputation, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii).
High Salary or Remuneration: The Petitioner did not provide evidence of a high salary or other significantly high remuneration in relation to others in his field, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix).
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The Petitioner did not provide evidence of receiving nationally or internationally recognized awards.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of published material in major media about him.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner’s contributions were not demonstrated to have major significance in the field.
Participation as a Judge:
The Petitioner did not establish that he participated as a judge of the work of others in the field.
Membership in Associations:
Not applicable.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Petitioner did not establish that he authored scholarly articles in the field.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The Petitioner did not establish his roles as leading or critical in distinguished organizations.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of a high salary compared to others in his field.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
The Petitioner provided various supporting documents, including letters of recommendation, articles, and evidence of his work. However, these did not collectively establish the required criteria for extraordinary ability.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The motion to reconsider was dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not demonstrate that he met at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. The appeal was summarily dismissed because the Petitioner did not submit a statement identifying any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact as a basis for the appeal, nor did he submit additional evidence or a brief within the stipulated timeframe. The motion to reconsider did not provide new evidence or arguments to address the initial deficiencies. The totality of the evidence did not support a finding of sustained national or international acclaim or that the Petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of his field.
Next Steps: The Petitioner may consider submitting additional evidence that clearly establishes the major significance of his contributions or explore other immigration options that may better fit his qualifications.
