Date of Decision: March 29, 2021
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Chief Executive Officer
Field: Robotics
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Authorship of scholarly articles:
The petitioner has authored several scholarly articles published in scientific journals and conference proceedings, including the International Journal of Robotics Research, Science Robotics, and IEEE Transactions on Robotics.
Leading or critical roles for organizations with a distinguished reputation:
The petitioner serves as the CEO and co-founder of a robotics company, which has received significant industry and media recognition.
Original contributions of major significance:
The petitioner has made significant contributions to the development of robotics, including advancements incorporated into NASA projects and other notable robotics initiatives.
Criteria Not Met:
Lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards or prizes:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence that the awards received are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field.
Published materials in professional publications or major media:
While some media coverage was provided, it did not sufficiently demonstrate that the petitioner himself garnered national or international acclaim.
Participation as a judge of the work of others:
The petitioner did not contest the Director’s conclusion that he did not meet this criterion.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner did not submit evidence of awards that meet the required standards for national or international recognition.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Articles from media outlets covered the petitioner’s work and company but did not highlight his individual contributions to a degree that would indicate national or international acclaim.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner’s advancements in robotics were acknowledged by experts and incorporated into significant projects, demonstrating their impact and importance in the field.
Participation as a Judge:
This criterion was not met as the petitioner did not provide evidence of judging the work of others in his field.
Membership in Associations:
The petitioner did not submit evidence related to memberships that require outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Authorship of scholarly articles:
The petitioner successfully demonstrated this criterion with his numerous published works in reputable scientific journals.
Leading or critical role performed:
The petitioner’s role as CEO and his contributions to his company’s success were recognized, fulfilling this criterion.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable in this case.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not addressed in the document.
Commercial successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable in this case.
Supporting Documentation
Letters from industry experts and professionals
Articles from scientific journals and mainstream publications
Award certificates and documentation
Media coverage of the petitioner’s company and projects
Evidence of patents and innovative contributions to robotics
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not meet at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria required for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. While the petitioner demonstrated significant achievements, the evidence provided was insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim and recognition at the very top of his field.
Next Steps: The petitioner may consider gathering more comprehensive evidence of his individual acclaim and contributions to strengthen a future petition or explore other visa options suitable for his qualifications and achievements.
