Date of Decision: October 2, 2023
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Business Professional
Field: Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) – Business Management Software
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Original Contributions of Major Significance: The petitioner provided evidence of a patent for an AI-based chatbot platform. However, this criterion was not fully satisfied as the significance to the broader field was not demonstrated.
- Published Materials: Not mentioned in the decision.
Criteria Not Met:
- Participation as a Judge: The petitioner’s role as a mentor did not meet the criterion as it did not involve judging the work of others in a field of specialization.
- Awards and Prizes: Not mentioned in the decision.
- Membership in Associations: Not mentioned in the decision.
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles: Not mentioned in the decision.
- Leading or Critical Role: Not mentioned in the decision.
- Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases: Not mentioned in the decision.
- Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration: Not mentioned in the decision.
- Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts: Not mentioned in the decision.
Key Points from the Decision
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner submitted a patent for an AI-based chatbot platform. Despite this, the director concluded that the issuance of a patent alone does not verify the significance of the innovation. The petitioner did not establish how the chatbot platform demonstrated major significance to the field of ERP.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner’s participation as a mentor for a foundation did not satisfy the criterion of judging the work of others in the same or allied field. The role of a mentor, as defined by the foundation, involves supporting and guiding mentees rather than evaluating their work.
Supporting Documentation
- Patent for AI-based Chatbot Platform: Provided evidence of the patent but lacked verification of its significance in the broader field.
- Mentorship Certificates: Included certificates from the foundation for mentoring but did not qualify as judging the work of others.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not provide the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or evidence meeting at least three of the ten criteria. The significance of the petitioner’s work was not demonstrated to be of major significance to the field, nor did the petitioner show sustained national or international acclaim.
Next Steps:
It is recommended that the petitioner gather more substantial evidence to meet the criteria, particularly focusing on demonstrating the major significance of their contributions to the field and providing clearer documentation of national or international acclaim.
