Date of Decision: May 29, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Advisory FSO SAP
Field: Data Science and Technology
Nationality: [Not specified in the document]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Criterion 1: Judging the Work of Others
The petitioner satisfied this criterion by providing evidence that the beneficiary reviewed papers for journals.
Criterion 2: Authorship of Scholarly Articles
The petitioner met this criterion by showing that the beneficiary authored scholarly articles in professional publications.
Criteria Not Met:
Criterion 1: Original Contributions of Major Significance
The petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary’s contributions were of major significance in the field. The evidence, such as the ranking of an Amazon bestseller and the number of citations, did not demonstrate widespread implementation or significant influence in the field.
Criterion 2: Leading or Critical Role
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence that the beneficiary performed in a leading or critical role for organizations with a distinguished reputation. The reference letters lacked probative value and did not adequately describe the beneficiary’s leading or critical roles.
Criterion 3: High Salary or Remuneration
The petitioner did not demonstrate that the beneficiary commanded a high salary relative to others in the field. The evidence provided, such as pay stubs and comparisons to general salary data, was insufficient to establish this criterion.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won: Not applicable
Published Materials About the Petitioner: Not applicable
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner claimed that the beneficiary’s book was an Amazon bestseller and cited by others, but did not sufficiently demonstrate the book’s impact on the field.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner provided evidence that the beneficiary reviewed papers for journals, fulfilling this criterion.
Membership in Associations: Not applicable
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 did not provide sufficient evidence that the beneficiary held leading or critical roles within distinguished organizations.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases: Not applicable
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The petitioner did not demonstrate that the beneficiary’s salary was high relative to others in the field.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts: Not applicable
Supporting Documentation
Articles and Publications: Evidence of the beneficiary’s scholarly articles.
Reference Letters: Letters detailing the beneficiary’s contributions and roles.
Book Ranking and Citations: Information about the beneficiary’s book and citations.
Pay Stubs: Documentation of the beneficiary’s salary.
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. The evidence submitted did not establish national or international recognition of the beneficiary’s achievements or demonstrate major contributions to the field of data science and technology. The petitioner did not show that the beneficiary’s professional accomplishments placed him among the small percentage at the very top of his field.
Next Steps:
The petitioner may consider gathering more substantial evidence of extraordinary ability, focusing on awards with national or international recognition, significant contributions, 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.
