Date of Decision: February 3, 2021
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
- Profession: Chief Technology Officer
- Field: Technology and Autonomous Vehicles
- Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
- Initial Decision: Denied
- Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
The petitioner did not meet any of the criteria. Below is the analysis of the claimed criteria:
Criteria Not Met:
Published material about the alien in professional or major media: The petitioner submitted various articles from major media sources. However, none of the articles were specifically about the petitioner; they mostly mentioned the company he worked for or quoted him briefly. Therefore, this criterion was not met.
Original contributions of major significance: The petitioner provided evidence of patents and articles discussing the company’s technology. However, the evidence did not demonstrate that his contributions had a major impact on the field. The contributions were still in the testing phase and had not shown widespread influence or significance.
Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments: Although claimed, this criterion was not evaluated in detail since the petitioner did not meet the initial requirement of three criteria.
High remuneration for services: This criterion was also not evaluated in detail for the same reason as above.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won: (not applicable)
No specific awards or prizes were cited in the decision.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The articles submitted were about the company or contained brief mentions of the petitioner. None of the articles were focused on the petitioner’s achievements.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The patents and technology discussed were promising but had not yet achieved significant impact in the field. The potential future impact was noted but not sufficient for the current evaluation.
Participation as a Judge: (not applicable)
No evidence of participation as a judge was mentioned.
Membership in Associations: (not applicable)
No memberships in associations were highlighted.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: (not applicable)
No scholarly articles authored by the petitioner were cited.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Although the petitioner held a significant position, this criterion was not evaluated as the initial evidentiary requirements were not met.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases: (not applicable)
No artistic exhibitions or showcases were mentioned.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
This criterion was claimed but not evaluated due to the failure to meet the initial three criteria.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts: (not applicable)
No commercial successes in the performing arts were noted.
Supporting Documentation
The petitioner provided various forms of documentation, including:
Articles from major media sources.
Evidence of patents.
Letters of recommendation discussing his role and contributions.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal Dismissed
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not meet the stringent criteria required for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. The evidence did not establish that the petitioner had achieved sustained national or international acclaim or demonstrated that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field.
Next Steps:
For future petitions, it is recommended that the petitioner provide more substantial evidence demonstrating widespread recognition and significant impact within his field. Detailed documentation of his contributions and their influence on the industry would be beneficial.
