Date of Decision: AUG. 30, 2022
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Entrepreneur in the Hospitality Industry
Field: Hospitality
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
(iii) Published material about the individual in professional or major media:
The petitioner provided published material about his achievements in professional media, including Forbes.
(iv) Participation as a judge of the work of others:
The petitioner served as a judge in various capacities within his field, meeting this criterion.
Criteria Not Met:
(i) Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards:
The petitioner provided evidence of recognition in publications like Forbes, but failed to demonstrate that these recognitions were equivalent to nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards.
(ii) Membership in associations that require outstanding achievements:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence that his membership in associations required outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
(v) Original contributions of major significance:
The petitioner did not establish the major significance of his contributions, such as his innovations in the hospitality industry, which were not shown to have a significant impact on the field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Summary of findings:
The petitioner claimed recognition in publications like Forbes and My Kharkov, but these did not qualify as nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Summary of findings:
The petitioner provided published material in professional or major media, including an article in Forbes, which met this criterion.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Summary of findings:
The petitioner’s contributions, such as innovations in the hospitality industry, were not demonstrated to be of major significance. Letters from experts lacked sufficient detail and corroborating evidence.
Participation as a Judge:
Summary of findings:
The petitioner participated as a judge in various capacities, fulfilling this criterion.
Membership in Associations:
Summary of findings:
The petitioner did not demonstrate that his memberships in associations required outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Summary of findings:
Not applicable, as this criterion was not claimed or evaluated in detail.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Summary of findings:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to show his role was critical for organizations with a distinguished reputation, nor did he provide detailed evidence of his impact on the organizations’ outcomes.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Summary of findings:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Summary of findings:
Not applicable, as this criterion was not claimed or evaluated in detail.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Summary of findings:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
- Recognition Articles:
Documentation included articles from Forbes and My Kharkov, but these did not meet the criteria for nationally or internationally recognized awards. - Judging Participation:
Evidence of the petitioner’s participation as a judge in various capacities was provided. - Expert Letters:
Letters from experts did not provide sufficient details or corroborating evidence to demonstrate major significance.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not meet the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or documents that fulfill at least three of the ten lesser criteria. The totality of the material provided did not support a conclusion that the petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. The evidence did not demonstrate that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of their field.
Next Steps:
It is recommended that the petitioner consider alternative visa classifications or provide additional evidence addressing the deficiencies noted in the appeal decision.
Download the Full Petition Review Here.
