Date of Decision: June 15, 2022
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Real Estate Developer
Field: Real Estate Development
Nationality: [Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Approved
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- [Not Clearly Met]: The petitioner did not meet any specific criteria clearly.
Criteria Not Met:
- Awards and Prizes: The petitioner did not provide evidence of a major, internationally recognized award.
- Published Materials About the Petitioner: The petitioner did not submit any qualifying published material.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance: There was no evidence demonstrating significant contributions in the field.
- Participation as a Judge: The petitioner did not present evidence of judging the work of others in the same or related fields.
- Membership in Associations: No evidence was provided of membership in associations that require outstanding achievements.
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles: There was no submission of scholarly articles authored by the petitioner.
- Leading or Critical Role: The petitioner did not prove a leading or critical role in distinguished organizations.
- Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases: There was no evidence of exhibitions or showcases.
- Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration: The petitioner did not demonstrate a high salary compared to others in the field.
- Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts: There was no evidence of commercial successes.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Summary of findings: The petitioner did not provide any evidence of major awards.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Summary of findings: No qualifying published materials were submitted.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Summary of findings: The petitioner failed to demonstrate original contributions of major significance.
Participation as a Judge:
Summary of findings: No evidence of participation as a judge of the work of others was provided.
Membership in Associations:
Summary of findings: The petitioner did not submit evidence of membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Summary of findings: No scholarly articles were submitted.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Summary of findings: There was no evidence of a leading or critical role in distinguished organizations.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Summary of findings: The petitioner did not provide evidence of artistic exhibitions or showcases.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Summary of findings: No evidence of a high salary compared to others in the field was presented.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Summary of findings: The petitioner did not provide evidence of commercial successes.
Supporting Documentation
- Business Plan: Submitted but considered outdated and not compelling.
- Personal Statements: Provided explanations but lacked supporting evidence.
- Financial Documents: Included undated, illegible, and documents in the husband’s name, not supportive of the petitioner’s claims.
- Corporate Records: Demonstrated incorporation and dissolution of a company, but did not show active operations.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner failed to provide clear evidence of continued work in the field of expertise in the United States. The supporting documentation did not resolve inconsistencies and was insufficient to establish eligibility.
Next Steps: The petitioner should gather substantial and compelling evidence demonstrating eligibility criteria and consider reapplying with a stronger case.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
Cite as Matter of G-M-, ID# 20882300
Document: JUN152022_01B2203
