Date of Decision: December 5, 2024
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Real Estate Broker
Field: Real Estate and Business Development
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
The petitioner sought to demonstrate eligibility under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) by satisfying at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. Upon review, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) determined that the petitioner failed to meet the required criteria and dismissed the appeal.
Criteria Not Met:
- High Salary or Remuneration:
- The petitioner claimed a high salary based on the earnings of her real estate brokerage company. However, the evidence provided, including partial tax returns and a letter from an accountant, failed to establish that these earnings were attributable to the petitioner personally. Additionally, salary data comparisons were inconsistent and did not support claims of significantly high remuneration in relation to others in the field.
- Comparable Evidence:
- The petitioner attempted to claim comparable evidence due to the inapplicability of standard criteria. However, the AAO found that the petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that the standard evidentiary criteria could not be applied to her occupation.
- Published Material About the Petitioner:
- The petitioner did not provide evidence of major trade or professional publications discussing her individual achievements in the field.
Key Points from the Decision
Salary and Remuneration:
- The petitioner’s claim of high remuneration was based on gross company earnings, which were not substantiated as her personal income. The provided tax returns showed significant deductions, reducing the claimed income to levels below industry averages.
Comparable Evidence:
- The petitioner failed to justify why comparable evidence was necessary and did not adequately demonstrate how her contributions stood out in the field of real estate.
Published Material:
- No evidence was submitted to meet the standards for professional or major trade publications discussing the petitioner’s work.
Final Merits Determination:
- The AAO concluded that the petitioner’s achievements did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or position her among the very top of her field.
Supporting Documentation
Salary Evidence: Tax returns, accountant’s letter, and salary surveys that were inconsistent and insufficient.
Comparable Evidence: General claims without substantial documentation or justification.
Published Material: Lack of evidence meeting the requirements for major trade or professional publications.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner failed to meet the evidentiary requirements for at least three regulatory criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The evidence provided did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or position the petitioner among the very top of her field.
