Date of Decision: SEPT. 3, 2019
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Computer Systems Engineer
Field: Sciences
Nationality: [Nationality]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Participation as a Judge:
The Petitioner served as a judge for the “Computer and Innovation Competition” organized by the I of I Philippines. This criterion was fulfilled as documented by the Petitioner’s role in judging the competition.
Criteria Not Met:
One-Time Achievement:
The Petitioner presented two awards: a “Hall of Fame Awardee” certificate and an “Award for Innovation in Computer System Technology, Management, Planning, and Implementation.” However, these awards did not meet the requirements of being major, internationally recognized awards comparable to the Nobel Prize.
Lesser Prizes or Awards:
The Petitioner submitted various certificates of appreciation and achievement. However, these did not demonstrate national or international recognition for excellence in the field.
Membership in Associations:
The Petitioner claimed membership based on a Cisco Career Certification and other affiliations. However, these memberships did not require outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts in the field.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner submitted letters from former employers but did not provide sufficient evidence showing that her contributions were of major significance to the field.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
The Petitioner’s participation in a seminar was not considered an artistic exhibition or showcase as required by the criterion.
Leading or Critical Role:
The Petitioner did not demonstrate that her roles as a quality assurance engineer, network engineer, and systems engineer were leading or critical within distinguished organizations.
High Salary or Remuneration:
The Petitioner presented a tax statement, but it did not include comparative wage statistics to show that her earnings were high relative to others in her field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The awards presented were not internationally recognized and did not meet the criterion of major achievements in the field.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
No evidence was presented to show published materials about the Petitioner that met the required standards.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The letters provided did not sufficiently detail the significance or impact of the Petitioner’s contributions to the field.
Participation as a Judge:
The Petitioner met the criterion for judging competitions, demonstrating her role in evaluating the work of others in her field.
Membership in Associations:
The Petitioner’s memberships did not require outstanding achievements judged by national or international experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
No evidence of authorship of scholarly articles meeting the required standards was provided.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The Petitioner’s roles were not demonstrated to be leading or critical within her organizations.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
The evidence did not demonstrate that the Petitioner’s work was displayed at artistic exhibitions or showcases.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The Petitioner’s income was not shown to be significantly high relative to others in her field.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
No evidence of commercial success in the performing arts was presented.
Supporting Documentation
- Certificate of Appreciation: For being an Outstanding Quality Engineer.
- Certificate of Achievement: From Control Accuracy.
- Two Certificates of Achievement: For completing workshops on “Effective Problem-Solving Techniques” and “Software Engineering.”
- Certificate of Excellence: For work involving “Computer and Media Ministry.”
- Hall of Fame Awardee Certificate: From the “Provincial Director.”
- Award for Innovation in Computer System Technology, Management, Planning, and Implementation.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not meet the initial evidence requirements of a one-time achievement or at least three of the ten alternate criteria. The evidence presented did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or recognition required for the classification sought.
Next Steps: The Petitioner may consider gathering more substantial evidence or pursuing other visa classifications that may be more appropriate to her achievements and qualifications.
