Date of Decision: July 10, 2023
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Public Relations Director
Field: Public Relations
Nationality: [Nationality not provided in the document]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
None
Criteria Not Met:
Published Material About the Alien: The petitioner did not provide substantial evidence showing published material about her and her work in the field of public relations. The submitted articles mentioned her only as a contact person or in a passing manner, which does not satisfy the criterion.
Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Awards: The petitioner did not challenge the previous adverse conclusion regarding this criterion.
Membership in Associations Requiring Outstanding Achievements: The petitioner did not challenge the previous adverse conclusion regarding this criterion.
High Salary or Significantly High Remuneration: The petitioner did not challenge the previous adverse conclusion regarding this criterion.
Original Business Contributions of Major Significance: The petitioner claimed this criterion, but it was reserved due to not meeting at least one other claimed criterion.
Leading or Critical Role for Organizations with a Distinguished Reputation: The petitioner claimed this criterion, but it was reserved due to not meeting at least one other claimed criterion.
Key Points from the Decision
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
- Summary of findings: The submitted articles did not qualify as substantial discussions about the petitioner and her work in public relations. The articles only identified her as a press secretary or contact person.
- Key quotes or references: “A passing mention of the Petitioner is insufficient to make the articles about her.”
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- Summary of findings: This criterion was reserved as the petitioner did not meet the initial evidentiary requirement of at least three criteria.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
- Summary of findings: This criterion was reserved due to not meeting the initial evidentiary requirement of at least three criteria.
Supporting Documentation
- New Evidence: None provided for the motion to reopen.
- Legal and Policy References: The petitioner cited federal district court decisions and USCIS policy memoranda, but these were not persuasive in altering the decision based on the evidentiary requirements.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The motion to reopen and the motion to reconsider were both dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner failed to present new facts or evidence for the motion to reopen and did not establish that the prior decision was incorrect based on law or policy for the motion to reconsider. The petitioner did not meet the evidentiary criteria required for the classification sought.
Next Steps: The petitioner may consider gathering more substantial evidence related to the criteria not met and consult with legal experts to address the deficiencies in the future petitions.
