Date of Decision: January 20, 2015
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Chief Technology Officer
Field: Software and Technology
Nationality: Indian
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met
Published Material About the Petitioner:
The petitioner provided several articles and publications that mention their contributions to the software and technology industry. These materials demonstrate recognition from professional journals and mainstream media.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Evidence presented includes patents and proprietary technologies developed by the petitioner, which have significantly impacted the software development industry.
Criteria Not Met
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards in the field.
Participation as a Judge:
There was no substantial evidence that the petitioner served as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of expertise.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won
The petition lacked documentation of major awards that meet the high standards of the EB-1 criteria.
Published Materials About the Petitioner
Summary of findings:
The articles submitted were from reputable sources and confirmed the petitioner’s influence in technology development.
Key quotes or references:
One of the articles highlighted, “The petitioner’s innovations in software have transformed the efficiency of data management systems globally.”
Original Contributions of Major Significance
Summary of findings:
The petitioner’s patented technologies have been widely adopted, demonstrating a significant contribution to the field.
Key quotes or references:
“The petitioner’s work in algorithm optimization has set new standards in the industry, enhancing computational efficiency.”
Supporting Documentation
- Patents: Detailed descriptions and granted status of the patents developed by the petitioner, showcasing their contributions to software technology.
- Publications: Copies of articles and journal entries featuring the petitioner’s work and impact on the industry.
- Letters of Recommendation: Endorsements from industry experts and colleagues attesting to the petitioner’s extraordinary abilities and contributions.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was denied.
Reasoning: The petitioner met some of the criteria; however, they failed to provide evidence for all the required categories. The absence of recognized awards and insufficient evidence of participation as a judge were significant factors in the denial.
Next Steps: The petitioner may consider gathering additional evidence, especially in the areas of awards and judging roles, and reapply for the EB-1 classification.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
