Date of Decision: December 7, 2023
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Project Manager in Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality
Field: Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- None: The petitioner did not satisfy any of the required criteria.
Criteria Not Met:
- Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards for Excellence: The petitioner claimed eligibility based on receiving a Certificate of Merit. However, the evidence provided did not establish the national or international recognition of this award.
- Membership in Associations in the Field: The petitioner claimed eligibility based on membership in the All-Russian Society for the Protection of Nature. The evidence provided did not demonstrate that membership required outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
- Summary of Findings: The petitioner’s Certificate of Merit was not established as a nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence.
- Key Quotes or References: “The Petitioner did not demonstrate the recognition of the award beyond the Ministry.”
Membership in Associations:
- Summary of Findings: The petitioner’s membership in the All-Russian Society for the Protection of Nature did not meet the requirement of outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
- Key Quotes or References: “Membership requires an ‘obvious contribution,’ but the letter does not elaborate on what constitutes an ‘obvious contribution’ and how that equates to ‘outstanding achievement.'”
Supporting Documentation
- Certificate of Merit: Provided but not established as nationally or internationally recognized.
- Membership Confirmation Letter from ARSPN: Provided but did not demonstrate required outstanding achievements judged by experts.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The petitioner did not demonstrate eligibility for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not fulfill the initial evidentiary requirement of meeting at least three criteria. The documentation did not support the claim of sustained national or international acclaim required for the EB1 classification.
Next Steps: The petitioner may consider gathering more substantial evidence that clearly demonstrates meeting the necessary criteria or exploring other visa options.
