Date of Decision: FEB. 4, 2019
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Chief Technology Officer
Field: Technology
Nationality:
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Evidence of Participation as a Judge (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv)): The petitioner served as a judge for a database module add-on competition, which fulfills this criterion.
Evidence of Original Contributions of Major Significance (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v)): The petitioner provided evidence related to the development of computer applications and software. However, the documentation did not sufficiently demonstrate that these contributions had a major significance in the field. The materials provided did not show how the contributions significantly impacted the field or were widely recognized as major contributions.
Criteria Not Met:
Published Material About the Alien (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii)): The provided screenshots from websites such as huffingtonpost.com, pcadvisor.co.uk, mashable.com, and theverge.com were about the release of a computer application but did not specifically mention or feature the petitioner.
Leading or Critical Role for Distinguished Organizations (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii)): Although the petitioner held leading roles in organizations, the documentation did not establish that these organizations had a distinguished reputation.
Key Points from the Decision
Published Materials About the Petitioner
The materials provided were not about the petitioner specifically and thus did not fulfill the criterion for published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications.
Original Contributions of Major Significance
The petitioner’s contributions, such as the development of certain applications and software, were recognized but not demonstrated to be of major significance in the field. Letters provided did not sufficiently establish the impact or influence of these contributions in the field.
Participation as a Judge
The petitioner successfully demonstrated participation as a judge in a specific competition, meeting this criterion.
Leading or Critical Role
The petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that the organizations for which they claimed leading or critical roles were of distinguished reputation.
Supporting Documentation
Screenshots from various websites: These included mentions of applications but did not specifically feature the petitioner or demonstrate significant recognition of their contributions.
Recommendation Letters: Letters from colleagues and associates described the petitioner’s roles and contributions but lacked detailed explanations of their major significance to the field.
Tax Documentation and Acquisition Agreement: Provided documents related to the organizations the petitioner was involved with but did not establish the distinguished reputation of these organizations.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not submit sufficient initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or documents meeting at least three of the ten criteria required for EB1 classification. The provided documentation did not establish the petitioner’s acclaim or recognition necessary for the classification sought.
Next Steps: It is recommended that the petitioner gathers more substantial and specific documentation demonstrating major significance and widespread recognition of their contributions within the field, as well as evidence of leading roles in distinguished organizations.
