Date of Decision: April 17, 2019
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Managing Director
Field: Spa Design and Wellness
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Judging: The petitioner served as a judge for a notable competition in 2010.
- Leading or Critical Role: The petitioner performed in a leading or critical role for her company, a spa concept and design firm.
Criteria Not Met:
- Published Material: The petitioner provided 28 articles, but only four were about her, and they lacked the required author identification or proof of major publication status.
- Original Contributions: The petitioner presented evidence of her spa design concepts, but the documentation did not demonstrate that these contributions were of major significance in the field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Not applicable. No evidence of significant awards or prizes was presented.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
- Summary of findings: Only four articles were about the petitioner, but they did not meet the required standards of major trade publications or professional media.
- Key quotes or references: Articles about the petitioner lacked proper author identification and did not establish major media status.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- Summary of findings: The petitioner’s spa design concepts were implemented in some hotels/resorts, but there was no widespread adoption or significant impact demonstrated in the field.
- Key quotes or references: Letters and articles provided did not conclusively prove major significance, often being speculative about future impact rather than current acclaim.
Participation as a Judge:
- Summary of findings: The petitioner judged a notable competition in 2010.
- Key quotes or references: This role was confirmed and accepted as meeting one of the criteria.
Membership in Associations:
Not applicable. No evidence of significant professional memberships was provided.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Not applicable. The petitioner did not present evidence of authoring scholarly articles.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
- Summary of findings: The petitioner played a critical role in her company, which was acknowledged.
- Key quotes or references: Documentation supported the petitioner’s leading role in her firm.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable. No evidence of artistic exhibitions or showcases was provided.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not applicable. The petitioner did not present evidence of high salary or remuneration.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable. The petitioner did not present evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts.
Supporting Documentation
- Judging Role: Evidence of serving as a judge in a notable competition.
- Leading Role: Documentation of the petitioner’s critical role in her company.
- Published Materials: Four articles about the petitioner, though not meeting the required standards.
- Spa Design Concepts: Evidence of implementation in hotels/resorts, though lacking proof of major significance.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner did not meet the required criteria to demonstrate extraordinary ability.
Reasoning: The documentation provided did not establish that the petitioner’s contributions were of major significance or that she had garnered national or international acclaim.
Next Steps: The petitioner may consider gathering more substantial evidence of her achievements and contributions or exploring other visa options.
