Date of Decision: August 16, 2024
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Small Business Entrepreneur
Field: Business Ownership and Entrepreneurship
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
The petitioner claimed eligibility under five regulatory criteria but did not meet the evidentiary requirements for any of them.
Criteria Not Met:
- Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards:
- The petitioner submitted awards such as “Cafe of the Year” and “Best Local Coffee Shop.”
- The AAO determined these awards lacked national or international recognition and were primarily local honors or awards requiring self-nomination.
- Published Material About the Petitioner:
- Articles from regional publications and mentions in local media were provided.
- The AAO found these articles insufficient to meet the regulatory requirements, as they lacked evidence of prominence in major media or trade publications.
- Participation as a Judge of the Work of Others:
- The petitioner presented evidence of mentoring small business owners and training employees.
- The AAO concluded that these activities did not constitute formal judging of work within the business field.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- The petitioner highlighted contributions to local business practices, but the evidence did not establish significant industry-wide impact or adoption.
- Performance in a Leading or Critical Role:
- While the petitioner played a critical role in a local coffee shop, there was no evidence that the organization had a distinguished national or international reputation.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards Evidence:
- The awards provided were limited in scope and recognition, failing to meet the threshold for national or international acclaim.
Published Material:
- Articles did not demonstrate prominence or relevance in professional or trade media.
Judging Evidence:
- The petitioner’s mentoring activities were deemed insufficient to meet the evidentiary standards for judging the work of others.
Original Contributions:
- While the petitioner demonstrated success as a small business owner, the evidence did not substantiate claims of significant contributions to the broader business field.
Final Merits Determination Not Reached:
The petitioner did not meet at least three regulatory criteria, and thus the AAO did not proceed to a final merits determination.
Supporting Documentation
Awards Evidence: Local and self-nominated awards, lacking broader recognition.
Published Material: Articles and mentions in local publications, insufficient for meeting major media standards.
Judging Evidence: Evidence of mentoring and training activities, not equivalent to judging.
Leadership Evidence: Documentation of the petitioner’s role in a local coffee shop, lacking evidence of distinguished organizational reputation.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner failed to meet any regulatory criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or recognition as one of the small percentage at the very top of his field.
