Date of Decision: September 11, 2015
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Business Development and Commercialization
Field: Business
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Criterion: Evidence of the alien’s participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specification for which classification is sought.
Description: The Petitioner served as the chief guest and judge at a technology innovation event, evaluating participants’ work and motivating them.
Criterion: Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation.
Description: The Petitioner served as CEO for India Operations and then CEO, Asia & Senior Vice President for notable companies with distinguished reputations.
Criteria Not Met:
Criterion: Documentation of the alien’s receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor.
Description: The awards presented were given to the companies the Petitioner worked for, not to the Petitioner personally. The awards related to technology and product development, not business development and commercialization.
Criterion: Documentation of the alien’s membership in associations in the field for which classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields.
Description: The associations did not require outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts for membership.
Criterion: Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media, relating to the alien’s work in the field for which classification is sought.
Description: The articles provided were about the mobile communications industry and products, not specifically about the Petitioner’s work in business development and commercialization.
Criterion: Evidence of the alien’s original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field.
Description: The Petitioner demonstrated significance to the companies but did not show the impact on the field of business development and commercialization as a whole.
Criterion: Evidence of the alien’s authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade publications or other major media.
Description: The Petitioner provided news articles, not scholarly articles reporting original research or experimentation.
Criterion: Evidence of the display of the alien’s work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases.
Description: The Petitioner’s attendance at conferences did not equate to the display of his own work at artistic exhibitions or showcases.
Criterion: Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field.
Description: The Petitioner did not submit documentation of his own salary or other remuneration to demonstrate it was significantly high compared to others in the field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
- Summary of Findings: The awards presented were given to the companies, not the Petitioner. The awards related to technology and product development.
- Key Quotes or References: “The relevant regulatory language for this criterion requires evidence of the Petitioner’s ‘receipt’ of qualifying awards or prizes.”
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
- Summary of Findings: The articles were about the mobile communications industry and products, not specifically about the Petitioner’s work.
- Key Quotes or References: “An article about the mobile communications industry is not one about the Petitioner, relating to his work in the field.”
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- Summary of Findings: The Petitioner demonstrated significant contributions to companies but did not show impact on the field as a whole.
- Key Quotes or References: “The Petitioner has not articulated any original work that has impacted the field of business development and commercialization.”
Participation as a Judge:
- Summary of Findings: The Petitioner served as the chief guest and judge at a technology innovation event.
- Key Quotes or References: “Emails from event organizers confirm that the Petitioner served as a judge of the various competitions.”
Membership in Associations:
- Summary of Findings: The associations did not require outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts for membership.
- Key Quotes or References: “The Petitioner has not provided evidence that the full membership consists of nationally or internationally recognized experts in the field.”
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
- Summary of Findings: The Petitioner provided news articles, not scholarly articles.
- Key Quotes or References: “The articles provided do not report on original research or experimentation.”
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
- Summary of Findings: The Petitioner served in leading roles for notable companies.
- Key Quotes or References: “The Petitioner served as CEO for India Operations and then CEO, Asia & Senior Vice President for notable companies.”
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
- Summary of Findings: The Petitioner’s attendance at conferences did not equate to the display of his own work.
- Key Quotes or References: “The Petitioner has not satisfied the plain language requirements of this criterion.”
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
- Summary of Findings: The Petitioner did not submit documentation of his own salary or other remuneration.
- Key Quotes or References: “The Petitioner has not satisfied the plain language requirements of this criterion.”
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
- Summary of Findings: Not applicable in this case.
- Key Quotes or References: Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
- Letters from CEOs and executives summarizing the Petitioner’s work and its significance.
- Articles and news reports related to the mobile communications industry and the companies’ products.
- Emails and advertisements confirming the Petitioner’s role as a judge at technology innovation events.
- Salary data and comparisons for executives in the industry.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not meet the regulatory criteria for EB1 classification and did not demonstrate extraordinary ability in business development and commercialization.
Next Steps: The Petitioner may consider submitting additional evidence or reapplying with more comprehensive documentation.
