Date of Decision: September 22, 2022
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Strategy and Business Development
Field: Business, with expertise in the activation of category and digital growth strategies for consumer goods and retail companies
Nationality: [Nationality not provided]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Leading or Critical Role for Organizations with Distinguished Reputations: The Director determined that the Beneficiary has held a leading or critical role for organizations with distinguished reputations. The record supports that the Beneficiary’s contributions in this capacity were significant.
- High Salary: The Director also concluded that the Beneficiary has commanded a high salary, demonstrating his extraordinary ability in the field.
Criteria Not Met:
- Published Material About the Individual: The Director’s decision did not sufficiently analyze the articles submitted by the Petitioner, merely stating that the provided articles mentioned or quoted the Beneficiary but did not meet the regulatory requirements.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Director’s evaluation was found lacking as it did not fully address the substantial evidence submitted by the Petitioner, including project materials, internal documentation, presentations, and expert testimonial letters.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
No specific awards or prizes were discussed in the decision.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The Director’s analysis was deemed insufficient as it did not thoroughly evaluate the content and significance of the articles submitted.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner provided ample evidence, including expert letters and internal documentation, demonstrating the Beneficiary’s original contributions. However, the Director’s decision did not adequately consider or discuss this evidence.
Participation as a Judge:
No participation as a judge was mentioned.
Membership in Associations:
No specific memberships in associations were highlighted in the decision.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Petitioner did not pursue the claim regarding authorship of scholarly articles on appeal, and the Director’s initial decision on this criterion remains uncontested.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The Beneficiary’s role as a leader in the organization was recognized and supported by the Director.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The Beneficiary’s high salary was recognized as evidence of his extraordinary ability.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
The decision mentioned various supporting documents, including:
- Articles mentioning or quoting the Beneficiary
- Project materials and internal documentation
- Presentations demonstrating the Beneficiary’s contributions
- Expert testimonial letters
Conclusion
Final Determination: The decision of the Director was withdrawn, and the matter was remanded for further review and entry of a new decision.
Reasoning: The remand was necessary due to the Director’s incomplete analysis and failure to fully explain the reasons for denial. The Director did not adequately evaluate the specific evidence submitted by the Petitioner.
Next Steps: The Director is instructed to re-evaluate the evidence under the initial evidentiary criteria. If the Beneficiary satisfies at least three criteria, the Director must then assess whether the Beneficiary has demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim and is among the small percentage at the very top of the field.
