Date of Decision: February 13, 2024
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Marketplace Entrepreneur
Field: E-commerce
Nationality: Russian
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Judging the Work of Others: The Petitioner submitted evidence of judging the work of others at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), which was found to meet the plain language requirements.
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The Petitioner provided scholarly articles at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), satisfying the plain language of this criterion.
Criteria Not Met:
- Published Material About the Petitioner: The Petitioner did not meet the criterion for published materials at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). The articles lacked necessary details such as publication dates, author names, and credible independent verification of the publication’s status.
- Leading or Critical Role: The Petitioner failed to establish that he performed in a leading or critical role for distinguished organizations, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). The provided evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate the Petitioner’s impact on the organizations.
- Membership in Associations: The Petitioner did not contest the Director’s finding that he did not meet the membership criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), effectively waiving this ground.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Petitioner did not contest the Director’s finding that he did not meet the criterion for original contributions of major significance at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), effectively waiving this ground.
Key Points from the Decision
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
- Summary of Findings: The Petitioner submitted various translated articles from Russian websites. However, the articles were not deemed sufficient as they did not primarily focus on the Petitioner, lacked authorship details, and did not verify the publication’s credibility.
- Key Quotes or References: The Director noted that the articles were not about the Petitioner and lacked essential details, leading to the conclusion that this criterion was not met.
Leading or Critical Role:
- Summary of Findings: The evidence provided, including letters of recommendation and press articles, did not demonstrate that the Petitioner played a leading or critical role in distinguished organizations.
- Key Quotes or References: The Director stated that the evidence did not offer detailed information on how the Petitioner’s role was leading or critical for the organizations mentioned.
Intent to Continue to Work in the Area of Extraordinary Ability:
- Summary of Findings: The Director determined that since the Petitioner did not meet the initial evidentiary criteria, it was unnecessary to address the intent to continue working in the field.
Supporting Documentation
- Judging the Work of Others: Documented instances of the Petitioner judging the work of others in his field.
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles: Scholarly articles authored by the Petitioner.
- Published Materials: Translated articles from Russian websites, which were ultimately deemed insufficient.
- Recommendation Letters: Letters supporting the Petitioner’s role in various organizations, which did not adequately demonstrate a leading or critical role.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal Dismissed
Reasoning:
The Petitioner did not meet the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or documentation that meets at least three of the ten criteria. The evidence provided did not support the claims of national or international acclaim required for the EB1 Extraordinary Ability classification.
Next Steps:
The Petitioner may consider providing more substantial evidence addressing the specific deficiencies noted in the decision or exploring other visa classifications that might better match his qualifications and evidence.
