Date of Decision: May 17, 2021
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Chief Scientist
Field: Cybersecurity
Nationality: [Nationality not specified in the document]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Participation as a Judge of the Work of Others: The Beneficiary participated in technical program committees and panels.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Beneficiary provided substantial contributions recognized in the field of cybersecurity.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The Beneficiary authored articles published in reputable journals and conferences.
Criteria Not Met:
Membership in Associations: The Beneficiary’s membership in IEEE and Sigma Xi did not meet the criteria of requiring outstanding achievements as judged by recognized national or international experts.
Leading or Critical Role for Distinguished Organizations: The petitioner did not establish the distinguished reputations of the organizations or the significance of the Beneficiary’s roles.
High Remuneration for Services: No evidence was provided to demonstrate that the Beneficiary received high remuneration for services compared to others in the field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
No awards or prizes were documented that met the evidentiary criteria.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The petitioner claimed articles were published in international journals, but the Director concluded that the articles did not contribute to sustained acclaim.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Director acknowledged the Beneficiary’s contributions but found them insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.
Participation as a Judge:
The Beneficiary’s participation in panels and committees was acknowledged, but the significance of these roles was questioned.
Membership in Associations:
The Beneficiary’s memberships in IEEE and Sigma Xi did not meet the stringent requirements for this criterion.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Beneficiary authored several articles, but their impact and citation rates were deemed insufficient to demonstrate sustained acclaim.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Beneficiary held leading or critical roles in distinguished organizations.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
No evidence was provided regarding high salary or remuneration.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
Judging and Reviewing Activities: Evidence of participation in technical program committees and panels.
Scholarly Articles and Patents: Articles and patents authored by the Beneficiary, with citation counts.
Client Letters: Testimonials from clients regarding the Beneficiary’s contributions and leadership roles.
Conclusion
Final Determination:
The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary met the stringent requirements for sustained national or international acclaim. The evidence provided did not sufficiently establish that the Beneficiary was among the small percentage at the very top of his field.
Next Steps:
The petitioner may consider gathering and submitting additional documentation that directly addresses the initial evidentiary criteria and demonstrates sustained national or international acclaim. Consulting with an immigration attorney for further guidance on fulfilling the EB1 extraordinary ability requirements might be beneficial.
