Date of Decision: July 18, 2018
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Insurance Chief Executive Officer (CEO)
Field: Business
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Published Material About the Petitioner:
The Petitioner provided an article posted on a major website about him, meeting the criteria for published material under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii).
Judging the Work of Others:
The Petitioner served as a judge for a contest regarding young entrepreneurs, meeting the criteria for judging under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv).
Criteria Not Met:
Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards for Excellence:
The Petitioner claimed eligibility based on receiving an award. However, the promotional material and letters did not demonstrate that the awards were nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field.
Membership in Associations:
The Petitioner provided evidence of membership in associations. However, he did not submit the bylaws to corroborate that the memberships required outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner provided reference letters claiming original contributions, but the letters did not provide specific, detailed information demonstrating the impact in the overall field. The assertions lacked corroborating evidence showing the significant effect of his contributions.
High Salary or Other Significantly High Remuneration:
The Petitioner presented inconsistent evidence of his salary, with conflicting reports on his earnings. Additionally, he did not provide sufficient comparative data regarding the compensation of others in the field to establish that his salary was significantly high.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The Petitioner received some awards, but the provided evidence did not sufficiently establish their national or international recognition for excellence.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The Petitioner met the criteria for published material, with an article about him posted on a major website.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The reference letters provided did not sufficiently demonstrate the Petitioner’s contributions as being of major significance in the field.
Participation as a Judge:
The Petitioner served as a judge for a contest regarding young entrepreneurs, fulfilling this criterion.
Membership in Associations:
The evidence did not demonstrate that the memberships required outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Not addressed in the decision, suggesting no evidence was presented for this criterion.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The evidence did not demonstrate that the Petitioner’s roles were critical to the success of distinguished organizations.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable based on the field of business.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The Petitioner presented conflicting evidence of his salary and did not provide sufficient comparative data to establish that his earnings were significantly high.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable based on the field of business.
Supporting Documentation
The documentation included letters from professionals, evidence of awards, articles, and reference letters. However, these documents did not sufficiently establish the Petitioner’s recognition or meet the required criteria for extraordinary ability.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal dismissed.
Reasoning:
The Petitioner did not submit the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria listed in the regulations. The overall review of the submitted materials did not demonstrate the sustained acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought.
Next Steps:
The Petitioner may consider gathering more robust and detailed evidence to support the criteria that were not met. Ensuring that all documentation includes specific details about the significance and impact of the Petitioner’s contributions on the field is crucial for any future submissions.
