Date of Decision: September 22, 2022
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Business Executive and Entrepreneur
Field: Strategic Management and Business Development
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Published Material About the Individual: The Director determined that the Petitioner met her burden to establish that there was published material about her. The record supports this determination.
- Leading or Critical Role for Organizations with Distinguished Reputations: The Petitioner has performed in a leading or critical role for an organization with a distinguished reputation. This was also accepted by the Director.
Criteria Not Met:
- Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Awards: The Director acknowledged the Petitioner’s evidence but failed to provide an adequate analysis. The awards were deemed regional or organizational, and the Director’s brief analysis was insufficient.
- Membership in Associations That Require Outstanding Achievements: The Director listed the documents but did not provide a specific analysis, instead making a general finding that the evidence was insufficient.
- Participation as a Judge: The Petitioner submitted evidence of participation in judging panels for entrepreneurial competitions. The Director failed to evaluate this evidence properly.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Petitioner claimed her business strategies and initiatives were of major significance. The Director did not sufficiently address the evidence provided.
- High Salary or Other Significantly High Remuneration: The Director concluded that the Petitioner’s salary was not high compared to other CEO positions, disregarding her entrepreneurial role and the supporting evidence submitted.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The Director did not adequately assess the regional and organizational nature of the awards or provide detailed reasons for giving little weight to supporting evidence.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The published material criterion was met, but specific details were not elaborated upon in the decision.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner’s evidence related to business strategies and letters from industry experts was not fully considered by the Director.
Participation as a Judge:
The Petitioner’s participation in judging panels was acknowledged but not evaluated properly by the Director.
Membership in Associations:
The Director’s analysis was brief and did not adequately address the specific evidence submitted.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Not specifically mentioned or evaluated in the decision.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The criterion was met as the Petitioner had a leading role in a distinguished organization.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not relevant to this case.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The Director did not properly evaluate the evidence of the Petitioner’s salary as an entrepreneur.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not relevant to this case.
Supporting Documentation
- Initial Petition Evidence: Included awards, membership associations, published materials, contributions, roles, and salary evidence.
- Response to RFE: Additional documentation to support the criteria.
- Supplemental Evidence on Appeal: Provided further evidence for judging panels and salary comparison.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The decision of the Director was withdrawn, and the matter was remanded for a new decision.
Reasoning: The Director’s analysis was incomplete and did not fully address the specific evidence submitted by the Petitioner.
Next Steps: The Director is to re-evaluate the evidence submitted under the initial evidentiary criteria and issue a new decision, considering the totality of the record and whether the Petitioner has demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim.
