Date of Decision: August 4, 2022
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Chief Technology Officer
Field: Technology Management and Software Development
Nationality: [Nationality not specified in provided text]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Original Contributions of Major Significance: The petitioner demonstrated that he has made original contributions of major significance in the field of technology management and software development.
- Leading or Critical Role: The petitioner has performed in a leading or critical role for an organization with a distinguished reputation.
Criteria Not Met:
- Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Awards: The petitioner did not establish that he was the recipient of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field.
- Published Material About the Petitioner: The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of published material about him in professional or major trade publications or other major media.
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles: This criterion was claimed but not evaluated by the Director.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner provided evidence relating to two awards received by his employer. However, there was no evidence that these awards were intended to recognize individual contributors within the company.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The petitioner submitted an interview published in “Digital Druck,” but the article was not about the petitioner himself. There was no evidence provided to establish that “Digital Druck” is a major trade publication.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner demonstrated significant original contributions through his work in technology management and software development, supported by patents and other documentation.
Participation as a Judge:
Not applicable.
Membership in Associations:
Not applicable.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
This criterion was claimed but not evaluated by the Director.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner has served as a chief technology officer/technical director for companies specializing in management technologies and software solutions since the early 1990s.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not applicable.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
- Patents and Documentation of Original Contributions: Provided evidence of original contributions through patents and significant work in technology management.
- Awards Documentation: Provided documentation of awards received by the employer, but not by the petitioner individually.
- Published Interview in “Digital Druck”: Provided but not sufficient to meet the criterion for published material about the petitioner.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The decision of the Director was withdrawn, and the matter was remanded for further review.
Reasoning: The Director did not consider the petitioner’s claim that he met the criterion for authorship of scholarly articles and did not adequately explain the reasons for denial of the petition.
Next Steps: The Director should review the evidence related to the authorship of scholarly articles and conduct a final merits analysis of the totality of the record. The petitioner should ensure that all evidence is clearly documented and directly related to the criteria for EB1 classification.
