Date of Decision: February 3, 2021
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
- Profession: Chief Executive Officer (CEO)
- Field: Technology Entrepreneurship
- Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
- Initial Decision: Denied
- Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Leading or Critical Role:
The Petitioner demonstrated his role as the CEO of a company that empowers retail and service employees, which fulfilled this criterion.
Criteria Not Met:
Awards and Prizes:
The Petitioner did not demonstrate receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field. The evidence provided did not establish that he personally received venture capital funding as an award.
Membership in Associations:
The Petitioner failed to demonstrate that his membership in associations required outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts. The documentation provided did not sufficiently show the membership requirements or selection criteria involving recognized experts.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of published material about him in professional or major trade publications or other major media. The articles and interviews provided were about his company rather than about him.
Judging the Work of Others:
The evidence did not demonstrate that the Petitioner participated as a judge of the work of others. His role as a mentor did not satisfy the criteria for judging the work of others.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner did not show that his contributions were of major significance in the field. The evidence provided did not demonstrate widespread implementation or significant impact on the field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The Petitioner claimed receipt of venture capital funding as an award, but the evidence did not establish this as a recognized prize or award. The Petitioner also mentioned the 2018 Award, which was awarded to his company, not him personally.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The articles and interviews provided did not meet the criterion as they were about the Petitioner’s company rather than about him. The Petitioner did not include sufficient information such as the author, title, and date of the material.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The letters provided in support of the Petitioner’s contributions were broad and lacked specific details. The evidence did not show how his leadership significantly impacted the field.
Participation as a Judge:
The Petitioner’s role as a mentor did not satisfy the requirement of judging the work of others. The documentation did not provide details on how his mentoring involved judging.
Membership in Associations:
The Petitioner did not demonstrate that his membership in associations required outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Not applicable as the Petitioner did not provide evidence related to this criterion.
Leading or Critical Role:
The Petitioner successfully demonstrated his leading role as the CEO of his company, which was recognized as fulfilling this criterion.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable as the Petitioner did not provide evidence related to this criterion.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not considered in the appeal as the Petitioner did not fulfill the initial evidentiary requirement of three criteria.
Commercial successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable as the Petitioner did not provide evidence related to this criterion.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Recommendation:
Letters from colleagues and professionals, which broadly described the Petitioner’s contributions without specific details.
Venture Capital Funding Evidence:
Letters and financial documentation regarding venture capital funding received by the Petitioner’s company.
Membership Letters:
Letters from associations describing the Petitioner’s membership, but lacking details on the selection criteria and judging by recognized experts.
Articles and Interviews:
Articles and interviews that mentioned the Petitioner’s company, but did not focus on the Petitioner himself.
Conclusion
Final Determination:
The appeal was dismissed due to insufficient evidence meeting the criteria for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability.
Reasoning:
The Petitioner did not fulfill at least three of the required evidentiary criteria. The documentation provided did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or demonstrate that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field.
Next Steps:
The Petitioner may consider gathering more substantial evidence of major awards, significant contributions, and broader recognition in the field before reapplying or appealing again.
