Date of Decision: February 26, 2021
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Business Development Specialist
Field: Business Development
Nationality: [Not specified in the provided text]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Published material about the alien in professional or major media: The Petitioner provided evidence of press coverage from 2011 and 2012 and additional articles where he was mentioned or quoted.
Participation as a judge of the work of others: The Petitioner served as a judge for the 2011 I Research Award and the 2018 I Analysis Report.
Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments: The Petitioner held various executive roles, such as vice president and general manager, at multiple companies.
High salary: The Petitioner documented his income from various companies, which was considered to demonstrate a high salary.
Criteria Not Met:
Published material about the alien in professional or major media: Although the Petitioner had some media coverage, it was not sufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.
Participation as a judge of the work of others: The Petitioner’s judging activities were not shown to be of a scale or frequency to indicate sustained national or international acclaim.
Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments: The Petitioner’s roles were not shown to have resulted in significant recognition or acclaim from the broader field.
High salary: The Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that his salary was commensurate with those at the very top of his field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Not applicable.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner had press coverage from 2011 and 2012, and additional mentions in articles, but this was insufficient to show sustained national or international acclaim.
Key quotes or references: “The Petitioner did not demonstrate that such minimal press coverage is consistent with the sustained national or international acclaim necessary for this highly restrictive classification.”
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Not applicable.
Participation as a Judge:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner judged two events, seven years apart, which was not sufficient to demonstrate sustained acclaim.
Key quotes or references: “The Petitioner did not show how his experience judging these two contests contributes to a finding that he has a career of acclaimed work in the field.”
Membership in Associations:
Not applicable.
Authorship of scholarly articles:
Not applicable.
Leading or critical role performed:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner held various executive roles, but the evidence did not show that these roles resulted in significant recognition or acclaim.
Key quotes or references: “The record lacks evidence documenting his professional career with the other companies, nor does it demonstrate whether his employment resulted in attention or recognition from the field.”
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner documented his income, but it was not shown to be high relative to others at the very top of his field.
Key quotes or references: “The Petitioner did not establish that he commanded earnings commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim.”
Commercial successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
Press Coverage: Articles from 2011 and 2012, and additional mentions in articles.
Judging Activities: Participation as a judge in two events.
Executive Roles: Documentation of various executive roles at multiple companies.
Income Documentation: Evidence of income from various companies.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal dismissed.
Reasoning: 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 evidence provided did not support the level of recognition and influence required for the EB1 Extraordinary Ability classification.
Next Steps
Recommendations: The Petitioner may consider gathering more robust and independent evidence of his sustained impact and significance within the field, securing credible letters of support, and reapplying with a stronger case.
