Date of Decision: December 12, 2024
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Retail Manager
Field: Business – Retail Management
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 did not meet the necessary criteria to establish eligibility.
Criteria Met
- None:
The petitioner claimed five criteria but failed to satisfy the evidentiary standards for all.
Criteria Not Met
- Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards:
The petitioner presented training certificates and employer awards (e.g., “Employee of the Year” and “Employee Referral Award”). However, these awards were not demonstrated to be nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field. Specific details about the selection process, the number of recipients, and the level of recognition associated with these awards were lacking. - Participation as a Judge of the Work of Others:
The petitioner claimed eligibility based on her role in selecting models for fashion shows. However, the AAO found that this activity was part of her employment responsibilities and did not constitute acting as a judge of others’ work in the field. The evidence provided did not meet the criteria’s requirements. - Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner submitted letters and documentation discussing her work in curating product collections and developing sales techniques. However, these contributions were limited to the petitioner’s employer’s success and did not demonstrate significant field-wide impact or major recognition of her contributions. - Leading or Critical Role in Distinguished Organizations:
The petitioner failed to establish that her role as a senior sales representative was leading or critical to the organization’s success. Additionally, insufficient evidence was provided to demonstrate that the organization itself had a distinguished reputation. - High Salary or Remuneration:
The petitioner submitted salary records and Glassdoor data to support her claim of high remuneration. However, the evidence did not adequately establish that her salary was significantly higher than that of her peers in the field. Additionally, some evidence (e.g., Glassdoor statistics) was dated after the petition filing, which is inadmissible for this criterion.
Key Points from the Decision
- Awards Evidence: The petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate the national or international significance of the awards.
- Judging Evidence: Selecting models during employment did not meet the criteria for evaluating others’ work in the field.
- Contribution Evidence: The petitioner’s contributions were localized to her employer’s success and lacked evidence of field-wide impact.
- Leadership Evidence: The petitioner’s role and the organization’s distinguished reputation were inadequately substantiated.
- Salary Evidence: Comparative data did not demonstrate that her salary met the regulatory standard for high remuneration.
Final Merits Determination
The AAO concluded that the petitioner failed to meet at least three regulatory criteria and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or standing among the very top of her field.
Supporting Documentation
Awards Evidence: Training certificates and employer awards lacking broader recognition.
Judging Evidence: Employer letters describing job responsibilities, not independent judging roles.
Contribution Evidence: Letters describing contributions limited to her employer’s success.
Leadership Evidence: Documentation failing to show leading/critical roles or the organization’s distinguished reputation.
Salary Evidence: Salary records and Glassdoor statistics that did not support the claim of high remuneration.
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 demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or position the petitioner among the very top of her field.
