Date of Decision: April 23, 2020
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Management Analyst
Field: Healthcare Strategy and Effectiveness
Nationality: [Not specified in the document]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Criterion 1: Participation as a Judge of the Work of Others
The petitioner provided evidence that the beneficiary reviewed papers for journals, fulfilling this criterion.
Criterion 2: High Salary or Remuneration
The petitioner demonstrated that the beneficiary commanded a high salary relative to others in the field. The evidence provided showed that the beneficiary’s earnings were significantly high compared to others in the field.
Criteria Not Met:
Criterion 1: Original Contributions of Major Significance
The petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that the beneficiary’s contributions were of major significance in the field. The evidence, such as project savings and client impact, did not demonstrate widespread implementation or significant influence in the healthcare strategy field.
Criterion 2: Leading or Critical Role for Distinguished Organizations
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence that the beneficiary performed in a leading or critical role for organizations with a distinguished reputation. The reference letters lacked credibility and did not adequately describe the beneficiary’s leading or critical roles at an organizational level.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won: Not applicable
Published Materials About the Petitioner: Not applicable
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner claimed the beneficiary made significant contributions, such as redesigning solutions and improving efficiencies, but did not sufficiently demonstrate the impact on the field.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner provided evidence that the beneficiary reviewed papers for journals, meeting this criterion.
Membership in Associations: Not applicable
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: Not applicable
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence that the beneficiary held leading or critical roles within distinguished organizations.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases: Not applicable
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The petitioner demonstrated that the beneficiary’s salary was high relative to others in the field.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts: Not applicable
Supporting Documentation
Articles and Publications: Evidence of the beneficiary’s scholarly articles.
Reference Letters: Letters detailing the beneficiary’s contributions and roles.
Salary Information: Documentation of the beneficiary’s salary compared to industry standards.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to meet at least three of the required criteria for demonstrating extraordinary ability. The evidence submitted did not establish national or international recognition of the beneficiary’s achievements or demonstrate major contributions to the field of healthcare strategy and effectiveness. The petitioner did not show that the beneficiary’s professional accomplishments placed him among the small percentage at the very top of his field.
Next Steps:
The petitioner may consider gathering more substantial evidence of extraordinary ability, focusing on awards with national or international recognition, significant contributions, and other achievements that demonstrate standing at the top of the field. Exploring other immigration options that may be more suitable given the evidence available is also recommended.
