Date of Decision: March 30, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Managing Partner
Field: Venture Capital
Nationality: Japan
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met
None
Criteria Not Met
Published material about the alien in professional or major media: The petitioner provided an article from Asahi Shimbun, but it was determined that the article did not focus specifically on the petitioner’s work or achievements, and thus did not meet the required criteria.
Original contributions of major significance: The petitioner claimed significant contributions in opening channels of investment between Japan and the U.S. and cited a specific successful investment. However, the evidence provided did not demonstrate the broader impact or major significance required by the criteria.
Authorship of scholarly articles: The petitioner submitted an article written in a blog-like format, which did not qualify as a scholarly article. Furthermore, the publication of the article in a professional or major trade publication could not be verified.
Participation as a judge: The petitioner served as a peer reviewer for journals, but this role was not sufficient to meet the criterion of judging the work of others in the field.
Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments: The petitioner claimed to have played a critical role in various organizations, but the evidence provided did not substantiate the claim to the level required by the criteria.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won: The evidence provided did not establish that the awards listed were of major significance in the field of venture capital.
Published Materials About the Petitioner: The articles submitted did not provide enough focus on the petitioner’s work to meet the criteria.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The petitioner’s contributions were recognized by colleagues and clients but did not demonstrate the broader impact necessary to meet the criteria.
Participation as a Judge: The peer review role was not deemed sufficient for this criterion.
Supporting Documentation
non
Conclusion
Final Determination: The final determination was to deny the appeal.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not meet the required evidentiary criteria and failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or recognition of achievements at the level required for the classification sought.
Next Steps: The petitioner may consider gathering additional evidence to strengthen the application or explore other immigration options.
