Date of Decision: September 6, 2024
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Real Estate Entrepreneur
Field: Real Estate Development and Investment
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
The petitioner sought to meet at least three of the ten regulatory criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Upon review, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) determined that the petitioner met two criteria but failed to meet the required three.
Criteria Met:
- Published Material About the Petitioner:
- The petitioner provided articles from multiple news sources, which the Director and AAO concluded met the regulatory requirements for this criterion.
- Performance in a Leading or Critical Role for Distinguished Organizations:
- Evidence of the petitioner’s leading roles in several companies he founded was determined to meet this criterion.
Criteria Not Met:
- Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards:
- The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of receiving nationally or internationally recognized awards for excellence in the field.
- Membership in Associations Requiring Outstanding Achievements:
- The petitioner claimed membership in the Bulgarian Investment and Construction Association (BISA). However, the AAO found that the association did not require outstanding achievements as a condition for membership.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- Letters and evidence submitted described the petitioner’s contributions to real estate projects and legislative proposals. However, the evidence failed to demonstrate significant field-wide impact or major influence on the industry.
- Evidence of High Salary or Other Significantly High Remuneration:
- The petitioner provided profit-and-loss statements for his companies. However, the evidence did not demonstrate the petitioner’s personal remuneration in relation to others in the field.
Key Points from the Decision
Director and AAO’s Findings:
- The AAO affirmed the Director’s decision that the petitioner failed to meet three regulatory criteria.
- The AAO emphasized the petitioner’s lack of evidence demonstrating field-wide impact or influence.
Final Merits Determination:
- Since the petitioner failed to meet at least three regulatory criteria, the AAO did not proceed to the final merits determination.
Supporting Documentation
Published Material Evidence: Articles from multiple news sources about the petitioner’s work.
Leadership Evidence: Documentation of leading roles in companies founded by the petitioner.
Membership Evidence: Membership in BISA, which lacked the required standards for outstanding achievements.
Contribution Evidence: Letters describing contributions to real estate projects and legislative initiatives, lacking corroboration of major significance.
Remuneration Evidence: Profit-and-loss statements, insufficient to demonstrate high remuneration.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner met two regulatory criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). However, the evidence failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or recognition as one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of real estate development and investment.
