Date of Decision: July 16, 2018
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Blockchain Solution Architect
Field: Business
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration: The petitioner demonstrated that he commanded a high salary compared to others in his field in the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
Criteria Not Met:
Published Material About the Petitioner: The petitioner provided a screenshot from a news website that included a quote about his work. However, this material was not sufficient to meet the criterion as it was not established as a major trade publication or other major medium.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The petitioner submitted evidence of his inventions and implementations in three companies. However, the documentation did not demonstrate that these contributions were widely implemented or remarkably impacted the field to a level of major significance.
Leading or Critical Role: While the petitioner demonstrated that he held leading roles in his own companies, he did not establish that these organizations had a distinguished reputation.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won: Not applicable based on the provided evidence.
Published Materials About the Petitioner: The material provided did not qualify as major media coverage. The petitioner did not establish that the news website was a professional or major trade publication.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The petitioner’s contributions, while recognized within certain companies, were not shown to have a significant impact on the broader field. The letters of recommendation did not provide specific examples of how his work influenced the field.
Participation as a Judge: Not applicable based on the provided evidence.
Membership in Associations: Not applicable based on the provided evidence.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: Not applicable based on the provided evidence.
Leading or Critical Role Performed: The petitioner held leading roles in his companies, but these organizations were not demonstrated to have a distinguished reputation.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases: Not applicable based on the provided evidence.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration: The petitioner demonstrated a high salary compared to others in his field, meeting this criterion.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts: Not applicable based on the provided evidence.
Supporting Documentation
The documentation included contracts, background information on products, letters of recommendation, and evidence of business roles. However, much of the evidence did not meet the necessary criteria to demonstrate extraordinary ability.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal Dismissed
Reasoning: The petitioner did not meet the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or documentation that meets at least three of the ten criteria. While the petitioner satisfied the high salary criterion, the totality of the evidence did not support a finding of sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of his field.
Next Steps: The petitioner may consider gathering more substantial evidence of individual achievements and acclaim within the field, focusing on personal awards, critical reviews, and documented contributions of major significance to strengthen future petitions.
