Date of Decision: January 28, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Business Owner and Consultant
Field: Business Development
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met
Published Material: The record reflects that major media published material about the Petitioner.
Judging Competitions: The Petitioner judged investment/business competitions.
Criteria Not Met
Leading or Critical Role: The Petitioner contended that she met this criterion based on her role as a business development director. However, the evidence did not demonstrate significant contributions to the organization’s outcomes.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Summary of findings: Major media published material about the Petitioner.
Key quotes or references: Not specified.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Participation as a Judge:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner judged investment/business competitions.
Key quotes or references: Not specified.
Membership in Associations:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner’s role as a business development director was not sufficiently evidenced to show significant contributions.
Key quotes or references: The letter from the company founder lacked specific details on the Petitioner’s contributions.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Supporting Documentation
Unsigned Letter from Company Founder: The letter praised the Petitioner but lacked specific details and was not signed, diminishing its probative value.
Screenshots from Websites: Indicated investment funds but did not establish a distinguished reputation.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not meet the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria. The record does not support a finding of the required acclaim and recognition for the classification sought.
Next Steps: The Petitioner must provide more substantial and specific evidence to meet the criteria for extraordinary ability classification.
