Case Study: AAO dismissed an EB1-A Appeal of a Petition for an Alien Business Consultant
by Victoria Chen, Esq., J.D.
Background: The petitioner is involved in the performing arts. It seeks to classify the beneficiary as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act as an alien of extraordinary ability as a business consultant. The basis for his claim is his previous work as the government-appointed president of a corporation formed to build a city in Britain.
USCIS Decision: The director determined the petitioner had not established that the beneficiary qualifies for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability.
AAO’s Decision: The AAO stated tha the evidence the petitioner submitted is inconsistant with the field that the petitioner is going to engage. Specifically, the AAO stated that the work which the petitioner wishes to perform in the United States appears to consist of activity as a liaison between the State of Hawaii and leaders of British business and government. He submitted a letter, stating that the petitioner’s “work for us has been in connection with the use of our services by the State of Hawaii to increase inward tourism and air flights from Britain, to increase and foster UK/Hawaii trade, and to build political and other contacts for the Governor of Hawaii and his officers with UK ministers of government, government officials, board members and executives of major airlines and tourist companies, etc.” Such work, however, would not constitute a continuation of the same activities upon which the petitioner bases his claim to extraordinary ability. There is no indication that the petitioner intends to engage in city-planning in the State of Hawaii, or to foster small business in rural areas there. The petitioner’s assertion that he has demonstrated extraordinary ability in the field of business in general cannot be accepted. While the petitioner’s previous and current fields of work might perhaps be categorized under the broad category of “business,” they nevertheless are clearly two different occupations.
In addition, the AAO did not find the petitioner has not persuasively established that he has achieved the sustained national or international acclaim required for classification as an alien with extraordinary ability. The evidence presented does not establish the beneficiary to be at the top of his field, or that his entry will substantially benefit the United States. As a result, the AAO dismissed the appeal.