Date of Decision: NOV 7, 2018
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Business Executive in the Television Industry
Field: Television Business Strategy and Planning
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Judging the Work of Others: The Petitioner served as a judge for a television drama group, meeting the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). The certificate from the organization confirms his participation.
Leading or Critical Role: The Petitioner has been a senior executive at a prominent company for over 11 years, leading its expansion throughout Asia and Latin America. His role involved overseeing 600 employees across the United States and managing substantial financial operations globally, fulfilling the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii).
High Salary or Remuneration: The Petitioner provided evidence of a high salary in comparison to others in similar positions, supported by documentation from the U.S. Department of Labor and PayScale, meeting the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix).
Criteria Not Met:
Awards and Prizes Won: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of receiving major, internationally recognized awards. The evidence provided for the gold award in marketing lacked detail about his personal involvement and the prestige of the award.
Published Materials About the Petitioner: The materials submitted were primarily about the company rather than the Petitioner’s individual achievements. Articles focusing on company initiatives and his employment changes did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: While the Petitioner contributed to the company’s global expansion, the evidence did not show how these contributions were recognized as majorly significant within the field of television business strategy and planning.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Findings: The gold award for marketing did not show sufficient personal involvement or international acclaim.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Findings: The articles focused more on the company’s initiatives and projects rather than on the Petitioner’s personal achievements and acclaim.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Findings: The contributions to the company’s expansion were significant but did not demonstrate major impact or recognition within the field.
Participation as a Judge:
Findings: The Petitioner served as a judge for a television drama group, fulfilling this criterion.
Membership in Associations:
Findings: Not applicable in this case.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Findings: Not applicable in this case.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Findings: The Petitioner’s executive role and contributions to the company’s global expansion met this criterion.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Findings: Not applicable in this case.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Findings: The Petitioner demonstrated a high salary compared to others in similar positions, meeting this criterion.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Findings: Not applicable in this case.
Supporting Documentation
Articles and Reviews: Various articles and reviews about the Petitioner’s work in television business strategy and planning.
Recommendation Letters: Letters from colleagues and experts supporting the significance and impact of the Petitioner’s contributions to the field.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal Dismissed
Reasoning:
The Petitioner did not meet the required initial evidence of either a one-time major achievement or at least three of the ten criteria for extraordinary ability. The evidence presented did not establish the Petitioner’s sustained national or international acclaim or that he is among the small percentage who have risen to the very top of his field.
Next Steps:
The Petitioner may consider gathering more robust evidence of his contributions’ significance and potentially reapplying if additional substantial evidence can be presented. Consulting with an immigration attorney for further guidance and preparation may also be beneficial.
