Date of Decision: September 17, 2019
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Financial Journalist
Field: Business
Nationality: Nepal
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Awards and Prizes:
- The Petitioner received an Excellent Economic Journalist Award (2011) from a recognized organization in Nepal.
- Leading or Critical Role:
- The Petitioner held positions such as “Chief of ‘Banking and Share Beat’ of Economic News Bureau” and “Sub-editor of News Department” for a television network in Nepal.
Criteria Not Met:
- Membership in Associations:
- The Petitioner failed to demonstrate that his memberships required outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts.
- Published Materials About the Petitioner:
- Submitted articles lacked identified authors and publication dates, and did not adequately feature the Petitioner’s work.
- Participation as a Judge:
- The provided documentation did not sufficiently prove that the Petitioner judged the work of others.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- Letters of support did not offer detailed information or adequate corroborating documentation to demonstrate contributions of major significance.
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
- Articles and television segments were not demonstrated to be for learned persons in the field or to have characteristics of scholarly articles.
- High Salary or Remuneration:
- The Petitioner did not provide evidence showing that his salary was high relative to others in the same field in the United States.
- Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
- The Petitioner did not explain why he could not offer evidence that meets at least three criteria, nor how his evidence was truly comparable to this criterion.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The Petitioner received an Excellent Economic Journalist Award (2011), recognized nationally in Nepal, meeting one of the criteria.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The articles submitted did not have the required details (author, date) and were only brief mentions, thus failing to meet the criterion.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The letters provided lacked specific examples and sufficient detail to demonstrate contributions of major significance in the field.
Participation as a Judge:
The Petitioner’s roles did not sufficiently show participation in judging the work of others in the same field.
Membership in Associations:
The Petitioner’s memberships did not require outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The submitted articles were not shown to be for learned persons or to have characteristics of scholarly articles.
Leading or Critical Role:
While the Director initially found the Petitioner met this criterion, further review determined the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate a leading or critical role overall.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The Petitioner did not provide evidence that his salary was high relative to others in the same field in the United States.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
The Petitioner did not provide comparable evidence for this criterion, nor justify why he could not meet the listed criteria.
Supporting Documentation
- Excellent Economic Journalist Award (2011): National recognition in Nepal.
- Letters of Employment and Roles: Provided by employers, detailing roles and responsibilities.
- Articles and Publications: Submitted but lacked necessary details to meet the criteria.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed. The Petitioner did not meet the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria.
Reasoning: The Petitioner’s evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate extraordinary ability or sustained acclaim required for the classification.
Next Steps: The Petitioner must gather more substantial and detailed evidence that meets the criteria for extraordinary ability if considering future petitions.
