Date of Decision: June 7, 2021
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Media Management Expert
Field: Media Management
Nationality: [Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Participation as a Judge: The petitioner served as a judge for the [Specific Award], which was sufficient to meet the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv).
Criteria Not Met:
Leading or Critical Role: The petitioner provided evidence of his roles but did not establish the distinguished reputation of the organizations he worked for or resolve inconsistencies in his roles.
High Salary or Remuneration: The petitioner provided evidence of his income, but the documentation did not clearly establish whether the income reflected his salary or included bonuses, and there was no comparative evidence for salaries in his field.
Key Points from the Decision
Participation as a Judge
The petitioner provided evidence of serving as a judge for an industry award, meeting the criterion related to judging the work of others.
Leading or Critical Role Performed
The petitioner claimed to have performed in leading roles at various organizations but did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate the distinguished reputation of these organizations or clarify inconsistencies in his documentation.
High Salary or Remuneration
The petitioner provided income certificates and tax returns, but there were inconsistencies regarding whether the reported income included bonuses. Comparative evidence of salaries in the petitioner’s field in China was not provided.
Supporting Documentation
Judging: Documentation of the petitioner’s participation as a judge for an industry award.
Leading Role: Organizational charts, letters of recommendation, and media articles.
High Salary: Income certificates, tax returns, and wage statistics.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to meet at least three of the ten criteria required for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability.
The petitioner demonstrated some recognition and success in his field but did not establish the sustained national or international acclaim necessary for the EB1 classification.
Next Steps:
Consider gathering more substantial and relevant evidence to support the criteria not met.
Seek further guidance or legal advice on potential reapplication or other visa classifications that may be more appropriate for the petitioner’s qualifications and achievements.
