Date of Decision: August 25, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Business Executive
Field: Education
Nationality: [Not Provided in Document]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
None: Upon review, the Director’s findings on the criteria met were not sustained on appeal.
Criteria Not Met:
Published Material: The petitioner provided several print and online articles about his work, but these were not established as published in professional or major trade publications or other major media. The evidence did not include circulation figures or other data to prove the publications’ significance.
High Salary or Remuneration: The petitioner provided evidence of his salary, but the comparative data were insufficient to demonstrate that his salary was significantly high relative to others in his field. The figures from an online article were not supported by direct information from the report it referenced or the organizations that released the report.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The petitioner claimed original business contributions of major significance but did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate this criterion.
Leading or Critical Role: The petitioner claimed a leading role in his companies, but the evidence provided did not adequately establish this role as leading or critical for the organizations as a whole.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Not applicable, as no specific awards or prizes were discussed.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The petitioner provided various articles, but discrepancies and lack of independent verification diminished their credibility. Additionally, the petitioner did not establish that the publications were major media or professional trade publications. For example, the article from Beijing Morning Post had inconsistencies regarding its content and publication dates, making it unreliable. The petitioner also failed to prove that the China Profiles magazine and Beijing Evening News articles met the necessary criteria for major media.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Not evaluated, as the petitioner did not meet the initial requirement of at least three criteria. The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish original contributions of major significance in his field.
Participation as a Judge:
Not applicable, as there was no evidence provided for this criterion.
Membership in Associations:
Not applicable, as no membership in associations was discussed.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Not applicable, as no authorship of scholarly articles was discussed.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner’s role as a business executive was significant, but the evidence did not demonstrate that these roles were leading or critical for the organizations as a whole.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable, as the petitioner’s field does not involve artistic exhibitions or showcases.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The petitioner provided salary evidence, but the comparative data did not demonstrate that his salary was significantly high relative to others in his field. The figures presented were from various sources without sufficient direct information or verification, limiting their reliability.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable, as the petitioner’s field does not involve commercial successes in the performing arts.
Supporting Documentation
Reference Letters: Provided letters from professionals and executives recognizing the petitioner’s roles and contributions. However, these letters were insufficient to establish the petitioner’s eligibility under the claimed criteria.
Published Articles: Included several articles about the petitioner’s work, but discrepancies and lack of verification diminished their credibility.
Salary Documents: Included salary information but did not offer a reliable basis for comparison to others in the field.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not meet the initial evidentiary criteria and failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or recognition in his field. The evidence provided was found to be insufficient to establish his eligibility for the EB1 classification.
Next Steps: The petitioner may consider gathering more comprehensive and corroborative evidence to support his claims, focusing on independent recognition and demonstrating how his work has had a significant impact on his field.
