EB-1 Extraordinary Ability USCIS Appeal Review – Business Data Engineer – APR112023_02B2203

Date of Decision: April 11, 2023
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability

Petitioner Information

Profession: Business Data Engineer
Field: Business
Nationality: [Nationality not specified in the document]

Summary of Decision

Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied

Evidentiary Criteria Analysis

Criteria Met:

1. Participation as a Judge:
   The petitioner participated as a judge of the work of others in his field during a performance review panel at a Russian grocery and retail chain in May 2019.

Criteria Not Met:

1. Membership in Associations:
   The petitioner claimed membership in several associations such as Amazon Web Services (AWS) Certified Global Community, Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), and Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). However, these memberships were not demonstrated to be based on outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts.
2. Original Contributions of Major Significance:
   The petitioner claimed contributions in developing corporate data warehousing projects and other analytics tools. However, these contributions were not shown to be original or of major significance to the field beyond his immediate professional circle.
3. Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
   The petitioner cited articles published on Medium. These articles were not included in the record, and there was no evidence to show they were scholarly or widely recognized.
4. High Salary or Remuneration:
   The petitioner’s earnings in Russia and Germany were compared to general IT salaries, not specifically to those of business data engineers, and did not establish significantly high remuneration.

Key Points from the Decision

Awards and Prizes Won: Not applicable.

Published Materials About the Petitioner:

• The petitioner did not provide evidence that his work or contributions were widely covered or recognized in published materials.

Original Contributions of Major Significance:

• The petitioner’s contributions were not shown to have a significant impact on the field of data engineering outside his immediate work environment.

Participation as a Judge:

• The petitioner’s participation in a performance review panel was recognized as meeting this criterion.

Membership in Associations:

• The petitioner’s memberships were not found to meet the requirements of being based on outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.

Authorship of Scholarly Articles:

• The articles on Medium were not substantiated as scholarly or influential.

Leading or Critical Role:

• The petitioner did not demonstrate leading or critical roles in organizations with distinguished reputations beyond his employer.

Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases: Not applicable.

Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:

• The petitioner’s earnings did not demonstrate significantly high remuneration compared to others in his field.

Commercial successes in the Performing Arts: Not applicable.

Supporting Documentation

• AWS Certification: Documentation showed completion of coursework but did not establish it as an association membership based on outstanding achievements.
• Membership Certificates: Certificates from ACM and IEEE lacked details on the requirements or recognition of outstanding achievements.
• Articles and Publications: URLs provided without the actual articles. Viewership statistics from Medium did not demonstrate scholarly impact.
• Salary Comparisons: General IT salary statistics from various websites did not specifically compare to business data engineers’ remuneration.

Conclusion

Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not meet the initial evidentiary requirement of at least three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The evidence provided did not establish that the petitioner achieved sustained national or international acclaim or demonstrated a career of acclaimed work in the field. The petitioner was found not to be among the small percentage at the top of his field.

Next Steps: The petitioner should consider providing more comprehensive and specific evidence to meet the required criteria for demonstrating extraordinary ability in any future petitions.

Download the Full Petition Review Here.