Date of Decision: May 27, 2021
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Business Executive
Field: Investment Banking and Agribusiness
Nationality: Russian
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Published Material About the Petitioner: The Director found that one of the evidentiary criteria met was related to published material about the Beneficiary. One notable publication was an interview in the 2015 print edition of a magazine, which featured the Beneficiary on the cover and included a detailed biography and investment plans.
Leading or Critical Role: The Beneficiary served in leading or critical roles for various organizations. Evidence included reference letters from significant figures in the Beneficiary’s professional network. For instance, the Beneficiary was instrumental in developing three pork production and processing complexes, leading to the company becoming the largest pork producer in the Russian Federation.
Criteria Not Met:
Prizes or Awards: The evidence provided did not substantiate that the Beneficiary received lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence. The awards mentioned were granted to the Beneficiary’s employers rather than to the Beneficiary directly.
Membership in Associations: The Beneficiary’s membership in NAUFOR, which was argued to require outstanding achievements, was found to be based on employment and payment of dues rather than significant professional accomplishments.
Evidence of High Salary: The Beneficiary’s salary, although above the median for CEOs in Russia, did not conclusively demonstrate that it was high relative to others in the same field and location due to inconsistencies in salary reports and the types of income reported.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won: The evidence failed to confirm the Beneficiary’s receipt of any nationally or internationally recognized awards. Awards mentioned were for the Beneficiary’s employer, not the Beneficiary.
Published Materials About the Petitioner: The Beneficiary was featured in an article in 2015, which included a detailed biography and investment plans. However, this publication was not considered a major trade publication.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate the Beneficiary’s original contributions of major significance to the field. The documentation provided was not persuasive enough to meet this criterion.
Participation as a Judge: There was no evidence provided to support the Beneficiary’s participation as a judge of the work of others in the field.
Membership in Associations: The membership in NAUFOR did not meet the requirement of outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: There was no evidence of the Beneficiary authoring scholarly articles in the field.
Leading or Critical Role: The Beneficiary’s leading roles in various organizations were acknowledged but the organizations did not all have distinguished reputations as required.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases: Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration: The salary evidence presented was found inconsistent and insufficient to prove that the Beneficiary’s remuneration was significantly high in the field.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts: Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
Reference Letters:
Letters from various professional associates described the Beneficiary’s roles and contributions but lacked sufficient detail to support the claims.
Published Articles:
An interview in a 2015 magazine featured the Beneficiary but the magazine did not qualify as a major professional or trade publication.
Salary Reports:
Reports from payscale.com and salaryexplorer.com provided salary ranges for CEOs in Russia, which were used to compare the Beneficiary’s earnings.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not meet the initial evidentiary requirement of three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The evidence provided was insufficient to demonstrate that the Beneficiary had achieved sustained national or international acclaim or that he was among the small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor.
Next Steps: The Petitioner may consider providing more comprehensive and detailed evidence to support the criteria for extraordinary ability if pursuing further immigration benefits.
