EB-1 Extraordinary Ability USCIS Appeal Review – Computer Systems Analyst – JUL112022_01B2203

Date of Decision: July 11, 2022
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability

---

Petitioner Information

Profession: Computer Systems Analyst
Field: SAP Basis Administration
Nationality: Not specified in the document

---

Summary of Decision

Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed

---

Evidentiary Criteria Analysis

Criteria Met:

1. Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
   The Petitioner provided evidence of authorship of scholarly articles, which was acknowledged by the Director as satisfying this criterion.
2. High Remuneration for Services:
   The Petitioner demonstrated high remuneration for his services, meeting another criterion according to the Director.

Criteria Not Met:

1. Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards:
   The Petitioner submitted a certificate from a previous employer recognizing his commitment and performance. However, this was deemed insufficient as it was not recognized nationally or internationally.
2. Membership in Associations That Require Outstanding Achievements:
   No evidence was provided to support membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements.
3. Participation as a Judge of the Work of Others:
   The Petitioner claimed to have judged the work of others, but the evidence provided did not substantiate this claim.
4. Original Contributions of Major Significance:
   The Petitioner’s contributions were described, but they did not establish the major significance required by this criterion.
5. Leading or Critical Role for Distinguished Organizations or Establishments:
   While the Petitioner worked for prominent clients, the evidence did not show his role was of significant importance to the organizations’ outcomes.
6. Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
   Not applicable to this case.

---

Key Points from the Decision

Awards and Prizes Won:
The certificate provided by the Petitioner was limited to recognition within his previous employer and did not hold national or international significance.

Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Not applicable.

Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The letters provided described routine job tasks rather than contributions of major significance.

Participation as a Judge:
The Petitioner did not provide credible evidence to support claims of judging the work of others in a professional capacity.

Membership in Associations:
No evidence of membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements was provided.

Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Petitioner provided sufficient evidence of authorship, meeting this criterion.

Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The Petitioner’s roles, though significant within his job scope, did not meet the standard of leading or critical roles within distinguished organizations.

Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.

Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The Petitioner demonstrated high remuneration, satisfying this criterion.

Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.

---

Supporting Documentation

1. Certificate of Recognition:
   Provided by a previous employer, acknowledging the Petitioner’s commitment and performance. However, it was not deemed to have national or international significance.
2. Letters from Employers and Professors:
   Included general statements about the importance of SAP Basis administrators and specific technical details about the Petitioner’s work. These letters failed to establish that the Petitioner’s contributions were of major significance or that he held a critical role in distinguished organizations.
3. Online References:
   The Petitioner referenced online articles describing the general importance of SAP Basis administrators, which did not suffice to meet the criterion of critical roles.

---

Conclusion

Final Determination: Appeal Dismissed

Reasoning:
The Petitioner did not satisfy the required initial evidence criteria and failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim. The roles and contributions described did not demonstrate that the Petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of his field.

Next Steps:
The Petitioner may consider gathering more substantial and verifiable evidence of extraordinary ability and contributions in his field before reapplying.

---

Download the Full Petition Review Here

---

Cite as Matter of G-M-, ID# 20603827
Document: JUL112022_01B2203.pdf