Date of Decision: OCT. 29, 2019
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: General Manager
Field: Traditional Chinese Shoe Industry
Nationality: China
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The Petitioner authored an article titled “Title of Article” published in the professional publication West Leather.
Criteria Not Met:
- Published Material About the Petitioner: The Petitioner submitted articles about his employer rather than about himself, and did not provide sufficient evidence that these articles appeared in major trade publications or other major media.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Petitioner failed to demonstrate that his contributions, such as his patented shoe design, were of major significance in the field. The reference letters provided did not come from experts in the field and lacked specific details on the significance of his contributions.
- Leading or Critical Role: The Petitioner did not submit sufficient independent evidence to establish his leading or critical role in his organizations. The letters provided were vague and from individuals with no direct knowledge of his work.
Key Points from the Decision
Published Materials About the Petitioner
- Summary of Findings: The articles submitted were about the Petitioner’s employer and did not meet the criteria for being about the Petitioner’s work in the field. The Petitioner also failed to establish that the publications were major trade publications.
- Key Quotes or References: “These articles are not about the Petitioner and his work in the field, but rather are about his employer.”
Original Contributions of Major Significance
- Summary of Findings: The Petitioner did not provide evidence that his patented shoe design had a major impact on the field. The reference letters lacked specificity and credibility.
- Key Quotes or References: “The significance of the innovation must be determined on a case-by-case basis. A patent recognizes the originality of the idea, but it does not demonstrate that the petitioner made a contribution of major significance in the field.”
Leading or Critical Role Performed
- Summary of Findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish his leading or critical role in his organizations. The letters provided were from individuals with no direct knowledge of his work and were not sufficiently detailed.
- Key Quotes or References: “The Petitioner has not submitted organizational charts or other evidence that would independently confirm his position and placement in the organizations’ hierarchies.”
Supporting Documentation
- Reference Letters: Primarily from individuals outside the Petitioner’s field and lacking specific claims regarding the significance of his contributions.
- Patents: Patent for a shoe design, but no corroborating evidence of its impact on the field.
- Media Appearances: Screenshots from videos without transcripts or detailed descriptions.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner failed to meet the initial evidence requirements and did not establish that his contributions were of major significance or that he held a leading or critical role in his organizations. The evidence provided was insufficient to demonstrate his eligibility for the EB1 Extraordinary Ability classification.
Next Steps: The Petitioner may consider providing more detailed and credible evidence from experts in his field, as well as independent documentation of his contributions and roles.
