Date of Decision: February 25, 2020
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Senior Director and Expert
Field: Trade and Diplomatic Relations
Nationality: [Not specified in the document]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Criterion 1: Leading or Critical Role
The Director found that the Beneficiary had met the criterion for playing a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. The Beneficiary served as an advisor in the field of trade and diplomatic relations and held prominent roles in various organizations.
Criterion 2: Commanding a High Salary
The Director determined that the Beneficiary had commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. The Beneficiary’s earnings were significantly higher than the average for similar roles in the industry.
Criteria Not Met:
Criterion 1: Published Material About the Petitioner
The Beneficiary provided evidence of articles published on Business Insider and Yahoo Finance, but the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate that these publications are considered major media. Additionally, other articles submitted were not focused on the Beneficiary.
Criterion 2: Original Contributions of Major Significance
The Beneficiary claimed original contributions of major significance in the field of trade and diplomatic relations, including a novel approach to building relationships with government officials. However, the provided evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate the widespread impact or major significance of these contributions.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Beneficiary had received lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The petitioner submitted articles that mentioned the Beneficiary, but the evidence did not meet the criterion for published material in professional or major trade publications. The circulation statistics provided were insufficient to establish these publications as major media.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner claimed contributions such as a novel approach to diplomatic relations and trade agreements. However, the provided testimonials and documentation did not sufficiently demonstrate the major significance or widespread implementation of these contributions in the field.
Participation as a Judge:
Not applicable in this case.
Membership in Associations:
Not applicable in this case.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner demonstrated that the Beneficiary authored scholarly articles in professional publications, meeting this criterion.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner demonstrated that the Beneficiary held leading roles within distinguished organizations, meeting this criterion.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable in this case.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The petitioner demonstrated that the Beneficiary’s salary was high relative to others in the field, meeting this criterion.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable in this case.
Supporting Documentation
Articles and Publications: Various articles and publications about the Beneficiary’s work.
Letters of Reference: Letters from colleagues and associates detailing the Beneficiary’s contributions and roles.
Salary Information: Documentation of the Beneficiary’s salary compared to industry standards.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to meet at least three of the required criteria for demonstrating extraordinary ability. While the Beneficiary demonstrated authorship of scholarly articles, participation as a judge, and a leading or critical role, the evidence provided did not establish the major significance of his contributions to the field of trade and diplomatic relations. The petitioner did not show that the Beneficiary’s professional accomplishments placed him among the small percentage at the very top of his field. Additionally, the petitioner did not provide evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required for the classification sought.
Next Steps:
The petitioner may consider gathering more substantial evidence of extraordinary ability, focusing on contributions with demonstrated major significance, awards with national or international recognition, and other achievements that demonstrate standing at the top of the field. Exploring other immigration options that may be more suitable given the evidence available is also recommended.
