Date of Decision: January 29, 2021
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Chief Executive Officer (CEO)
Field: Business Education and Training
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Published Material in Major Media:
The Petitioner and his work were the subject of an article published by Kommersant, a daily newspaper with national circulation in Russia.
Participation as a Judge of the Work of Others:
The Petitioner judged several competitions in the field of business, including the information technology competition at the Open Innovations Forum and the Entrepreneurship Prize competition.
Leading or Critical Role for an Organization with a Distinguished Reputation:
The Petitioner is the CEO and founder of a training center and business education provider, recognized for organizing business and self-improvement training events.
Criteria Not Met:
Receipt of Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards:
The Petitioner was nominated but did not win in the “Top 30 Most Famous People” in the business category by Sobaka magazine, which has a regional focus.
Membership in Associations Which Require Outstanding Achievements:
Insufficient evidence was provided to demonstrate that the Petitioner’s memberships were based on outstanding achievements.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of contributions of major significance to the field.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Director determined that the articles authored by the Petitioner did not qualify as scholarly articles under the regulations.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner’s nomination in Sobaka magazine was noted but not sufficient to meet the criterion for nationally or internationally recognized awards.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Summary of findings: The Kommersant article was acknowledged as a significant publication. However, other media coverage was mostly in local or regional publications, not indicative of national or international acclaim.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Summary of findings: The evidence provided did not sufficiently demonstrate that the Petitioner made original contributions of major significance to the field.
Participation as a Judge:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner served as a judge in several competitions, including the Open Innovations Forum and the Entrepreneurship Prize competition. However, some of the competitions were regional, and the roles were not clearly linked to national acclaim.
Membership in Associations:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not provide adequate evidence to show that his memberships were based on outstanding achievements.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Summary of findings: The Director determined that the Petitioner’s publications did not meet the definition of scholarly articles.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner’s role as CEO and founder of a business education provider was recognized, but the overall impact and recognition of the organization were not sufficient to demonstrate sustained acclaim.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Summary of findings: Not applicable or not provided.
Supporting Documentation
- Kommersant Article: An article published by a major national newspaper in Russia, highlighting the Petitioner’s work.
- Judge in Competitions: Documentation of the Petitioner’s role as a judge in various business competitions, including letters from organizers.
- Business Role: Evidence of the Petitioner’s leadership and the distinguished reputation of his business education organization.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that he has sustained national or international acclaim or that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence provided was not sufficient to meet the high standards required for the classification sought.
Next Steps: The Petitioner may consider gathering more substantial evidence of national or international acclaim and reapplying, or explore other visa classifications that may be more appropriate for his qualifications and achievements.
