Date of Decision: February 20, 2020
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Travel Agent
Field: Travel and Tourism
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met
None of the criteria were met as per the final decision.
Criteria Not Met
Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards: The Petitioner claimed that his travel agency was a finalist for a Welcome to Georgia National Tourism Award. However, this recognition was deemed insufficient because the award was not given to the Petitioner personally but to the agency. Furthermore, being a finalist did not constitute an actual award, and the Petitioner did not establish that the award was nationally or internationally recognized.
Published Material in Major Media: The Petitioner submitted an article from Georgian Journal’s website, also cited by Georgia Today. The deficiencies included the article briefly mentioning the Petitioner without focusing on him, lack of author identification, and insufficient evidence that these websites were considered major media.
Leading or Critical Role for Distinguished Organizations: The Petitioner indicated that he performed a leading role for a travel company by creating partnerships and organizing tours. However, the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate that his role was leading or critical to the company’s success, nor did it show that the company enjoyed a distinguished reputation. The letters submitted were identical and lacked credibility.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not establish that he personally received nationally or internationally recognized awards. The nomination as a finalist for the Welcome to Georgia National Tourism Award was not sufficient.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that published materials about him were in major trade or professional publications or other major media.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Participation as a Judge:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Membership in Associations:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that he performed leading or critical roles for organizations with a distinguished reputation.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Supporting Documentation
Award Materials: Provided but did not establish national or international recognition for the individual.
Articles and Publications: Included articles from Georgian Journal and Georgia Today that did not meet the standards for major media coverage or were not primarily about the Petitioner.
Letters from Colleagues and Organizations: Praised the Petitioner’s work but were identical and lacked credibility and sufficient detail to demonstrate major significance or critical roles.
Salary Documentation: Insufficient for establishing high remuneration.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal and motions are dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to meet at least three of the ten criteria. The Petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field. The totality of the evidence did not support a finding of the required acclaim and recognition for the classification sought.
Next Steps: The Petitioner must provide more substantial and specific evidence to meet the criteria for extraordinary ability classification. The motion to reopen and reconsider was dismissed because the Petitioner did not meet the requirements and did not provide new, substantial evidence or demonstrate an incorrect application of law or policy in the initial decision.
