Date of Decision: MAY 17, 2019
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Investment Banking Professional
Field: Finance and Investment Banking
Nationality:
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Judging the Work of Others: Initially considered met, but upon review, found not established due to lack of sufficient detail and relevance.
- High Salary or Remuneration: Established as the petitioner’s compensation exceeded the top ten percent of U.S. mid-career investment bankers.
Criteria Not Met:
- Membership in Associations: Not met as there was no sufficient evidence of membership in associations relevant to the extraordinary ability claim.
- Published Material About Petitioner: Not met; the evidence did not demonstrate that published material about the petitioner was significant in the field.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance: Not met; while involved in significant transactions, the petitioner did not demonstrate that his methods were novel or widely adopted.
- Scholarly Articles: Not met as there was no evidence of published scholarly articles in significant publications within the field.
- Leading or Critical Role in Organizations: Met for specific roles but overall not sufficient to outweigh other unmet criteria.
Key Points from the Decision
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
- The record contains articles from major financial publications regarding transactions the petitioner was involved in, but none specifically highlighted the petitioner’s contributions.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- The petitioner’s contributions to high-profile financial transactions were noted but not deemed to be of major significance in impacting the field as required.
Participation as a Judge:
- Initially claimed, but detailed review showed the roles assumed did not align sufficiently with the criterion’s expectations.
Membership in Associations:
- No evidence provided that would classify as significant under the criteria for extraordinary ability.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
- Documented roles in significant financial restructuring and advisory projects but were not persuasive enough in the context of extraordinary ability classification.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
- Clearly established with comparative salary figures exceeding industry standards for similar roles.
Supporting Documentation
- Employment letters describing roles and responsibilities.
- Financial statements and remuneration details.
- Articles from financial publications and internal reviews.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The petitioner did not meet the required evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. Despite high remuneration and involvement in significant financial transactions, the evidence did not demonstrate that the petitioner’s contributions were original, widely recognized, or of major significance to the field.
Reasoning: The analysis was based on the quality, relevance, and impact of the contributions, which were insufficient to meet the classification standards.
Next Steps: It is recommended that the petitioner gather more substantial and direct evidence of impact and recognition in the field for any future petitions.
