Date of Decision: March 26, 2021
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Associate Professor of Computer Science
Field: Computer Science
Nationality: [Nationality not specified in the document]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Judging: The petitioner fulfilled the criterion of judging by peer reviewing manuscripts for several conferences in his field.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner authored scholarly articles in professional publications, including scientific journals and conference proceedings.
Criteria Not Met:
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner provided evidence relating to the publication of his research, patents, letters from experts, and practical applications of his work by private sector companies.
The evidence did not demonstrate that the petitioner made original contributions of major significance in the field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Not Applicable
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Summary of Findings: The petitioner submitted evidence of publications and citations but failed to demonstrate that these publications resulted in original contributions of major significance.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Summary of Findings: The letters from experts described the petitioner’s work in technical detail but did not provide sufficient examples or analysis to establish the major significance of his contributions.
Participation as a Judge:
Summary of Findings: The petitioner peer-reviewed manuscripts for several conferences, fulfilling the judging criterion.
Membership in Associations:
Not Applicable
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Summary of Findings: The petitioner authored scholarly articles in professional publications, which fulfilled the criterion of authorship of scholarly articles.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Not Applicable
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not Applicable
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not Applicable
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not Applicable
Supporting Documentation
Expert Opinion Letters: Detailed technical descriptions of the petitioner’s research, but lacking in analysis of major significance.
Google Scholar Profile: Showed cumulative citations, but the significance of the contributions was not established.
Patent Applications: Provided, but their impact or influence in the field was not demonstrated.
Collaborative Research Projects: Certificates of achievement from collaborative research, but lacking evidence of major significance.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal Dismissed
Reasoning: The petitioner did not meet the required initial evidence of a one-time achievement or at least three of the ten criteria. The evidence provided did not support a finding of major significance in the field or sustained national or international acclaim.
Next Steps:
The petitioner may consider gathering more substantial evidence that demonstrates the major significance of his contributions in the field.
Reapply with additional supporting documentation that meets the required criteria for extraordinary ability.
