Date of Decision: December 29, 2023
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Business Executive and Cybersecurity Professional
Field: Business and Cybersecurity
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner successfully demonstrated that the beneficiary has authored significant works on cybersecurity issues. This includes independent reviews of these books, reference, and testimonial letters about their significance, and contributions to creating an exam blueprint for the certification of cybersecurity professionals.
Criteria Not Met:
Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards:
The Director did not find the awards submitted to be sufficient, stating they appeared to be local or regional and not for excellence in the field.
Published Material About the Individual and Their Work:
The Director concluded that the petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence regarding the circulation of the publications, although over 20 articles about the beneficiary were provided.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Director found that the petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate how the beneficiary’s contributions amounted to original work and their impact on the field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
- The petitioner submitted several awards, including from a specific organization, highlighting their significance. However, the Director found these insufficient.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
- Over 20 published articles were submitted, yet the Director’s decision did not adequately reference these, indicating an incomplete review.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- The petitioner provided evidence of books authored by the beneficiary and their contributions to cybersecurity exams, but the Director’s analysis lacked depth.
Participation as a Judge:
- Not applicable.
Membership in Associations:
- Not applicable.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
- Established through books and other significant contributions in the cybersecurity field.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
- The petitioner provided documentation of the beneficiary’s roles in major corporations and institutions over a 20-year career. The Director is instructed to review these claims further.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
- Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
- Not applicable.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
- Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
- Awards Evidence:
- Detailed descriptions of several awards won by the beneficiary, including significance and selection criteria.
- Published Articles:
- Over 20 articles about the beneficiary’s work in cybersecurity.
- Books and Contributions:
- Authored books and creation of an exam blueprint for cybersecurity certification.
- Professional Roles:
- Documentation of the beneficiary’s leading roles in major corporations and institutions.
Conclusion
Final Determination:
The Director’s decision is withdrawn, and the matter is remanded for further review and entry of a new decision consistent with the analysis.
Reasoning:
The Director’s decision lacked a complete analysis and did not fully address the evidence submitted. On remand, the Director is to re-evaluate the evidence for each claimed criterion and perform a final merits analysis.
Next Steps:
The petitioner should ensure that all supporting documentation is clearly presented and relevant to the criteria being claimed. It is recommended to provide additional evidence if available to strengthen the case.
