Date of Decision: March 15, 2018
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Senior Director, Technical Design
Field: Technical Design in Apparel Retail
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Leading or Critical Role
The petitioner demonstrated that the beneficiary held a leading or critical role for organizations with distinguished reputations. Evidence showed the beneficiary served as the Head of Quality Assurance and Technical Services for a multinational clothing retailer from 2009 to 2016.
High Salary or Remuneration
The petitioner provided evidence of the beneficiary’s income, including pay stubs and a W-2 form, which corroborated her high salary compared to other professionals in her field. The documentation from career and employment websites supported the claim that she commanded a high salary.
Criteria Not Met:
Awards
The petitioner submitted a letter indicating the beneficiary gained second place in a prestigious award in 1991. However, no additional documentation was provided to establish the criteria, selection process, or significance of the award, nor its national or international recognition.
Original Contributions
Letters of support discussed the beneficiary’s contributions to technical design. However, the evidence did not demonstrate original contributions of major significance to the field as a whole. Implementing existing technologies and internal contributions to her employers were not considered sufficient.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles
The petitioner provided internal quality assurance articles and technical design manuals authored by the beneficiary. These documents did not meet the requirements as they were not published in professional or major trade publications or other major media.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The beneficiary’s award in 1991 lacked sufficient documentation to establish its significance or national/international recognition. The nomination for another award was also discounted as it did not equate to receiving the award.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The internal quality assurance articles and manuals produced by the beneficiary were not recognized as published scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Although the beneficiary introduced and implemented new technologies for her employers, these were not deemed original contributions of major significance to the field of technical design.
Participation as a Judge:
Not applicable in this case.
Membership in Associations:
Not discussed in the decision.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The provided articles were for internal company use and did not meet the criterion for publication in professional or major trade publications.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The beneficiary’s role as the Head of Quality Assurance and Technical Services for a distinguished multinational clothing retailer was recognized as a leading or critical role.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable in this case.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The evidence confirmed that the beneficiary earned a significantly high salary compared to others in her field.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable in this case.
Supporting Documentation
The petitioner submitted letters of support, pay stubs, a W-2 form, documentation from career and employment websites, and internal quality assurance articles and technical design manuals.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to meet at least three of the ten regulatory criteria required for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. Although the beneficiary met two criteria, the overall evidence did not support a finding of sustained national or international acclaim or demonstrate that the beneficiary is among the small percentage at the very top of her field.
Next Steps: The petitioner may consider gathering more robust and comprehensive evidence to support the criteria not met and potentially re-filing the petition or seeking alternative immigration options.
