Date of Decision: NOV. 15, 2022
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Public Relations (PR) Director
Field: Public Relations
Nationality: Russia
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
None. The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not meet any of the required criteria.
Criteria Not Met:
Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards: The Petitioner did not receive any personal awards; the awards were given to her employers, and there was no evidence that these awards recognized her individual excellence.
Membership in associations that require outstanding achievements: The Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence of membership in associations that demand outstanding achievements judged by national or international experts. She only submitted letters from officials without detailed membership requirements or her membership certificate.
Published material about the individual in professional or major media: The articles submitted were about events she organized, not about her specifically. The regulation requires the materials to be about the individual and their work, not merely mentioning them.
High remuneration for services: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to show her remuneration was significantly high compared to others in her field. The documentation provided was inconsistent and did not establish her total annual compensation for comparison.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The awards were given to the Petitioner’s employers, not to her individually. The Petitioner’s contribution to the award-winning projects was not sufficiently evidenced as recognition of her personal achievements.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The materials were about events and projects, not about the Petitioner herself. Only one article mentioned her name briefly, which does not satisfy the criterion that the material must be about her and her work.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The Petitioner’s provided evidence was insufficient and inconsistent. The comparison figures were for fixed salaries, while her compensation was project-based. This made it difficult to compare her remuneration to others in the field.
Supporting Documentation
- Letters from PR firms stating her contributions to award-winning projects.
- Printouts from RASO’s website describing membership application procedures.
- Translated invoices and salary comparisons from Russian sources, showing her remuneration.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not meet the initial evidentiary requirement of satisfying at least three criteria. The provided documentation did not sufficiently demonstrate her extraordinary ability or sustained national or international acclaim.
Next Steps: The Petitioner may consider gathering more substantial evidence of individual recognition, higher remuneration, and published materials specifically about her achievements, and reapply if new evidence supports her case.
