Date of Decision: October 25, 2023
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Chief Executive
Field: Small Business Development
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Participation as a Judge: The Petitioner provided sufficient documentation to establish eligibility by showing evidence of participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization.
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The Petitioner also demonstrated authorship of scholarly articles in the field, published in professional or major trade publications or other major media.
Criteria Not Met:
- Membership in Associations: The evidence provided for membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements was insufficient.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance: The evidence did not sufficiently establish original contributions of major significance in the field.
- Leading or Critical Role: The Petitioner failed to demonstrate performance in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments with a distinguished reputation.
- High Salary or Remuneration: The documentation regarding a high salary or other significantly high remuneration was found lacking. There were discrepancies in the salary figures provided, and the comparative data was not sufficiently objective.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won: (Not applicable)
- The Petitioner did not provide relevant evidence under this criterion.
Published Materials About the Petitioner: (Not applicable)
- No sufficient evidence was provided in this category.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- The Petitioner’s evidence did not demonstrate original contributions of major significance.
Participation as a Judge:
- Summary of Findings: The Petitioner provided adequate documentation proving participation as a judge.
- Key Quotes: The Director acknowledged this criterion was met based on the provided evidence.
Membership in Associations:
- Summary of Findings: The Petitioner’s evidence for membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements was deemed insufficient.
- Key Quotes: “The evidence provided was not sufficient to demonstrate the required outstanding achievements.”
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
- Summary of Findings: The Petitioner successfully demonstrated authorship of scholarly articles.
- Key Quotes: “The documentation provided confirms the authorship of scholarly articles in recognized publications.”
Leading or Critical Role:
- Summary of Findings: The evidence was insufficient to prove a leading or critical role in reputable organizations.
- Key Quotes: “The Petitioner did not meet the evidentiary requirements to establish a leading or critical role.”
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases: (Not applicable)
- No evidence was provided in this category.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
- Summary of Findings: The provided salary documentation was inconsistent and insufficient.
- Key Quotes: “There were discrepancies in the salary figures, and the comparative data was not sufficiently objective.”
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts: (Not applicable)
- No evidence was provided in this category.
Supporting Documentation
- Participation as a Judge: Documentation showing participation in judging panels.
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles: Copies of published articles and references.
- Membership in Associations: Insufficient evidence of outstanding achievements required for membership.
- Original Contributions: Lack of sufficient documentation.
- High Salary or Remuneration: Discrepant salary documentation and insufficient comparative data.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the initial denial.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not meet the burden of proof for several critical criteria necessary for the EB1 Extraordinary Ability classification. Key discrepancies and insufficient objective evidence led to the dismissal.
Next Steps: It is recommended that the Petitioner address the discrepancies and provide more robust, objective evidence for the criteria not met if they wish to pursue further action.
