Date of Decision: OCT. 3, 2022
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Asset Manager
Field: Insurance and Pensions
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Published Material: The petitioner provided evidence of published materials about her, including an article in China Enterprise News and interviews by China Securities Journal staff and Beijing television. However, the coverage was limited to 2018, and the content primarily focused on topics such as insurance and pensions rather than on her personal achievements.
Participation as a Judge of the work for others: The petitioner served as a peer reviewer for two journals and judged at a construction and development conference. However, she did not provide sufficient evidence to show that these roles were indicative of sustained national or international acclaim.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner authored articles in China Finance and the Journal of Central University of Finance and Economics, among others. Despite her publications, the evidence did not demonstrate that her work had a significant impact or that she was widely recognized in her field.
Criteria Not Met:
Evidence of Sustained National or International Acclaim: The petitioner did not show sustained acclaim in her field beyond the evidence from 2018. There was no documentation of media coverage before or after 2018 that would indicate a consistent and prolonged recognition of her achievements.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration: The petitioner provided salary statements and a salary guide from Kelly Services, but her earnings were not shown to be significantly high compared to others in her field.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: Although recommendation letters praised her work in pension management, there was no corroborating evidence to show that her contributions were of major significance or widely recognized in her field.
Leading or Critical Role Performed: The petitioner held positions such as the Director of the Pension Market and R&D Center, but she did not demonstrate that these roles garnered significant attention or acclaim within her field.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts: Not applicable to this case.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
None mentioned.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Limited media coverage from 2018, primarily focused on topics such as insurance and pensions rather than the Petitioner’s achievements.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Letters of recommendation highlighted her development of pension management products and their approval by the China Securities Regulatory Commission but lacked corroborating evidence of sustained acclaim.
Participation as a Judge:
Limited to 2018 and early 2019, with no evidence showing it was indicative of sustained national or international acclaim.
Membership in Associations:
Not specified as contributing to sustained acclaim.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Authored several articles and book chapters, but citation history did not demonstrate significant impact in the field.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Roles included Director of the Pension Market and R&D Center and Asset Custody Department, with no evidence showing these roles garnered significant attention in the field.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Salary and tax statements were provided, but they did not demonstrate a high salary compared to others in the field.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
- 2018 Article in China Enterprise News: Mentioned her experience and interviewed her.
- Interviews with Beijing Television and China Securities Journal: Screenshots provided, but no transcripts.
- Letters of Peer Review: Reviewed manuscripts for insurance journals.
- Authored Articles: Published in China Finance and Journal of Central University of Finance and Economics.
- Recommendation Letters: Described her work but did not provide sufficient evidence of sustained acclaim.
- Salary Statements: Provided but did not compare favorably with industry standards.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal Dismissed
Reasoning:
The Petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or show that she is among the small percentage at the very top of her field. The evidence provided did not meet the high standard required for EB-1 classification.
Next Steps:
The Petitioner may consider gathering more extensive documentation and evidence to support her claims of sustained national or international acclaim and reapplying.
