Date of Decision: November 29, 2019
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Computer Scientist
Field: 5G mobile network architecture, mobile big data analytics, mobile network verification, cutting edge mobile applications, and network/system security
Nationality: [Nationality]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Judging the Work of Others: The petitioner has served as a judge of the work of others in the field.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The petitioner has made significant original contributions to mobile data analytics and mobile network architecture.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner has authored several scholarly articles in prestigious journals.
Criteria Not Met:
Sustained National or International Acclaim: The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.
Top of the Field: The evidence did not show that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of his field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won
The petitioner received awards such as Best Community Paper Award in 2016 and 2017, and the Dissertation Year Fellowship in 2016. However, these awards were not considered sufficient to demonstrate sustained acclaim.
Published Materials About the Petitioner
The petitioner’s work has been cited over 220 times and downloaded over 1,618 times. Despite these metrics, the evidence did not establish that he is at the top of his field.
Original Contributions of Major Significance
The petitioner created a groundbreaking tool for mobile data analytics and developed platforms enabling advanced mobile big data analytics.
Participation as a Judge
The petitioner served as a peer reviewer for top conferences and journals in his field. However, the evidence did not demonstrate that this participation was due to outstanding contributions.
Membership in Associations
The petitioner did not provide evidence of memberships in associations that meet the extraordinary ability criteria.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles
The petitioner published articles in prestigious journals, with some being highly cited. Nevertheless, this was not sufficient to prove he is among the top of his field.
Leading or Critical Role Performed
The petitioner’s roles in projects and startups were recognized, but the extent of their impact was not adequately demonstrated.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration
Not applicable.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
- Letters of Recommendation: Multiple letters from colleagues and mentors attested to the petitioner’s skills and contributions. However, similarities in language suggested possible shared authorship, undermining their credibility.
- Awards and Citations: Documentation of awards and citations was provided, but was insufficient to demonstrate sustained acclaim.
- Peer Review Invitations: Evidence of peer review activities was included, but did not convincingly show they were due to extraordinary ability.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The evidence provided did not establish that the petitioner has sustained national or international acclaim or that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field.
Next Steps: The petitioner may consider gathering more robust evidence of sustained acclaim and top-tier status in the field before reapplying.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
