Date of Decision: February 26, 2021
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
- Profession: Computer Engineer and Researcher
- Field: Internet of Things (IoT) and Network Architecture
- Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
- Initial Decision: Denied
- Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Scholarly Articles: The petitioner has written scholarly articles and participated in peer review of articles written by others.
Original Contributions: The petitioner has made original contributions in the field of IoT and network architecture.
Criteria Not Met:
Published Material About the Individual: The submitted articles were mainly promotional or press releases from the petitioner’s institution and did not consistently highlight the petitioner individually.
Peer Review Invitations: Invitations to peer review articles, while acknowledging the petitioner’s expertise, were not restricted to top experts and included students and postdoctoral trainees.
Media Attention: Media attention was largely confined to the petitioner’s work at a specific institution and did not indicate sustained acclaim across his career.
Citation of Work: Although one of the petitioner’s articles was among the top 1% most cited in 2017, the overall pattern of citations did not establish sustained national or international acclaim.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
None applicable. The petitioner did not provide evidence of receiving major, internationally recognized awards.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Summary of Findings: The petitioner’s work was featured in various media outlets, but most articles did not mention the petitioner by name or highlight his individual contributions.
Key Quotes or References: The Director noted that media attention was more due to the institution’s reputation rather than the petitioner’s individual acclaim.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Summary of Findings: Letters from colleagues and collaborators supported the practical importance of the petitioner’s work but did not establish that these contributions led to national or international acclaim.
Key Quotes or References: The Director emphasized the need for evidence showing that the petitioner’s contributions have been widely recognized and acclaimed.
Participation as a Judge:
None applicable. The petitioner did not provide evidence of significant participation as a judge in his field.
Membership in Associations:
None applicable. The petitioner did not provide evidence of significant contributions leading to membership in distinguished organizations.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Summary of Findings: The petitioner authored several scholarly articles, but the overall citation pattern did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.
Key Quotes or References: The Director acknowledged the petitioner’s scholarly publications but noted that writing and reviewing articles are routine activities in the field.
Leading or Critical Role:
Summary of Findings: The petitioner did not provide evidence of a leading or critical role that resulted in recognition at a national or international level.
Key Quotes or References: The Director indicated that the petitioner’s roles were important but did not meet the high standard required for extraordinary ability.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
None applicable. The petitioner did not provide evidence of his work being displayed in artistic exhibitions or showcases.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
None applicable. The petitioner did not provide evidence of high earnings relative to others in his field.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
None applicable. The petitioner’s occupation does not involve performing arts, and he did not provide comparable evidence.
Supporting Documentation
Reference Letters: Letters from colleagues and collaborators, which praised the petitioner’s contributions but did not establish widespread acclaim.
Exhibition Evidence: None applicable.
Published Material: Articles and press releases from various sources, primarily associated with the petitioner’s institution.
Award Evidence: None applicable.
Income Evidence: None applicable.
Conclusion
Final Determination:
Outcome: Appeal Dismissed
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence provided did not meet the high standard required for the EB1 Extraordinary Ability classification.
Next Steps:
Recommendation: The petitioner may consider providing additional evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or achievements recognized by independent sources to meet the criteria for extraordinary ability in future applications.
