Date of Decision: August 12, 2020
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Entrepreneur
Field: Business
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner submitted evidence of an article co-authored and published in the journal “The Physics of Metals and Metallography.”
Criteria Not Met:
Membership in Associations: The petitioner did not address this criterion on appeal, and the initial evidence did not establish that the association required outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Published Material: The evidence provided did not meet the regulatory requirements. The translated summaries were insufficient, and the additional documentation did not support that the television channel “Russia 24” qualifies as major media.
Leading or Critical Role: The petitioner’s role as technical director and co-founder of his company was recognized, but the evidence did not establish that the company has a distinguished reputation.
High Remuneration: The petitioner’s salary evidence was incomplete and lacked a reliable basis for comparison to others in the field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Not applicable, as no specific awards or prizes were discussed.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The petitioner provided documentation of an interview on the television channel “Russia 24.” However, the evidence did not adequately establish the channel as major media, and discrepancies in the provided documentation further weakened the claim. Summaries of articles in Russian-language magazines were not accompanied by full English translations, rendering them inadmissible.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner claimed to meet this criterion but did not provide sufficient evidence to support it. Therefore, this claim was not evaluated as the petitioner did not meet the initial requirement of at least three criteria.
Participation as a Judge:
Not applicable, as there was no evidence provided for this criterion.
Membership in Associations:
The petitioner’s involvement in specific organizations was acknowledged, but there was no evidence that these associations required outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner successfully demonstrated the authorship of a scholarly article published in a professional journal.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner’s role at his company was significant, but the evidence did not establish the company’s distinguished reputation.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable, as the petitioner’s field does not involve artistic exhibitions or showcases.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The petitioner provided salary evidence, but it was incomplete and lacked a reliable basis for comparison to others in the field.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable, as the petitioner’s field does not involve commercial successes in the performing arts.
Supporting Documentation
Reference Letters: Provided letters from professionals and company representatives recognizing the petitioner’s roles and contributions. However, these letters were insufficient to establish the petitioner’s eligibility under the claimed criteria.
Published Articles: Included documentation of an interview and article summaries, many of which were found to be insufficiently supported by the necessary translations or lacked independent verification.
Financial Documents: Provided salary information and government grant details, but these did not offer a reliable basis for comparison to others in the field.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not meet the initial evidentiary criteria and failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or recognition in his field. The evidence provided was found to be insufficient to establish his eligibility for the EB1 classification.
Next Steps: The petitioner may consider gathering more comprehensive and corroborative evidence to support his claims, focusing on independent recognition and demonstrating how his work has had a significant impact on his field.
