Date of Decision: May 28, 2020
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Business Development and Marketing Manager
Field: Over-the-Top (OTT) South Asian Television Marketing
Nationality: [Not specified in the document]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Criterion 1: Leading or Critical Role for Distinguished Organizations
The petitioner demonstrated that she performed in a leading role for her employer, a provider of OTT streaming South Asian video programming, where she has worked since 2013. This criterion was met as she held a prominent position within the organization.
Criteria Not Met:
Criterion 1: Receipt of Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards
The petitioner claimed awards from local, state, and regional ethnic associations but did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that these awards were recognized nationally or internationally for excellence in the field. The awards were more related to participation in local events rather than for business development and marketing excellence.
Criterion 2: Published Material About the Petitioner
The petitioner provided articles from sources like South Asia Mid Week, which mentioned her expertise in OTT streaming. However, the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate that these publications were considered professional or major trade publications focusing on her work and achievements.
Criterion 3: Original Contributions of Major Significance
The petitioner claimed contributions such as introducing American standards of polygraphy to Russia and creating international partnerships with other polygraph associations. However, the provided evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate the major significance or widespread impact of these contributions in the field.
Criterion 4: Authorship of Scholarly Articles
The petitioner initially claimed to meet this criterion but did not provide sufficient evidence of scholarly articles in the field of business development and marketing. The articles provided were more related to her previous work during a student internship and political commentary.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that she had received lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The petitioner submitted articles that mentioned her, but the evidence did not meet the criterion for published material in professional or major trade publications. The provided publications did not sufficiently focus on her achievements in the field.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner claimed contributions to the field of OTT South Asian television marketing, but the evidence provided did not sufficiently demonstrate their major significance or widespread implementation.
Participation as a Judge:
Not applicable in this case.
Membership in Associations:
Not applicable in this case.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of scholarly articles in her field of expertise.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner demonstrated that she held a leading role within her organization, meeting this criterion.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable in this case.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not applicable in this case.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable in this case.
Supporting Documentation
Articles and Publications: Various articles and publications about the petitioner’s work.
Letters of Reference: Letters from colleagues and associates detailing the petitioner’s contributions and roles.
Award Documentation: Information about the awards claimed by the petitioner.
Membership Information: Documentation of memberships in various associations.
Salary Information: Not applicable.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to meet at least three of the required criteria for demonstrating extraordinary ability. While the petitioner demonstrated a leading role within her organization, the evidence provided did not establish the major significance of her contributions to the field of OTT South Asian television marketing. The petitioner did not show that her professional accomplishments placed her among the small percentage at the very top of her field. Additionally, the petitioner did not provide evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required for the classification sought.
Next Steps:
The petitioner may consider gathering more substantial evidence of extraordinary ability, focusing on contributions with demonstrated major significance, awards with national or international recognition, and other achievements that demonstrate standing at the top of the field. Exploring other immigration options that may be more suitable given the evidence available is also recommended.
