Date of Decision: May 27, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Assistant Professor of Computer Science and Information Systems
Field: Computer Science and Information Systems
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met
Participation as a Judge of the Work of Others: The Petitioner served as a peer reviewer for journals such as the International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks and the 2017 International Conference on Computing, Networking, and Communications (ICNC). This role demonstrated participation in judging the work of others in the field.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The Petitioner authored several scholarly articles published in reputable journals and conference proceedings, such as the International Conference on Computer Communications and Networks (ICCCN), IEEE Conference on Local Computer Networks (LCN), and Network Operations and Management Symposium (NOMS).
Criteria Not Met
Membership in Associations: The Petitioner claimed membership in the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). However, the evidence provided did not demonstrate that IEEE membership requires outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts. The membership criteria were based on educational level and professional competence, not on outstanding achievements.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Petitioner provided letters from colleagues and mentors stating the importance of her research. However, the evidence did not demonstrate that her contributions had already significantly impacted the field. The letters focused on the potential future impact of her research rather than its current major significance.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that published materials about her were in major trade or professional publications or other major media.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate original contributions of major significance in the field. The letters lacked specific details on how the contributions significantly influenced the field.
Participation as a Judge:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner served as a peer reviewer for several scientific journals and conferences, satisfying this criterion.
Membership in Associations:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that memberships required outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner authored several scholarly articles in reputable professional journals.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Supporting Documentation
Award Materials: Provided but did not establish national or international recognition for the individual.
Articles and Publications: Included articles that did not meet the standards for major media coverage or were not primarily about the Beneficiary.
Letters from Colleagues and Organizations: Praised the Beneficiary’s work but lacked sufficient detail to demonstrate major significance or critical roles.
Salary Documentation: Insufficient for establishing high remuneration.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner met two criteria but did not provide sufficient evidence to meet at least three of the ten criteria. The Petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that she is among the small percentage at the very top of the field. The totality of the evidence did not support a finding of the required acclaim and recognition for the classification sought.
Next Steps: The Petitioner must provide more substantial and specific evidence to meet the criteria for extraordinary ability classification.
