Date of Decision: NOV 17, 2023
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Cybersecurity Interaction Designer
Field: Cybersecurity
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Leading or Critical Role: The Petitioner demonstrated having a leading or critical role in various projects within the cybersecurity field, such as interaction design for significant projects at major companies.
- High Salary: The Petitioner was shown to have received a high salary indicative of his expertise in cybersecurity.
Criteria Not Met:
- Awards: The Petitioner did not provide evidence of receiving significant awards in his field.
- Membership in Associations: There was no documentation of membership in associations that require outstanding achievements.
- Judging the Work of Others: The Petitioner did not present evidence of serving as a judge of the work of others in his field.
- Original Contributions: The Petitioner did not adequately demonstrate that his contributions were of major significance to the field.
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of authorship of scholarly articles in professional publications.
- Published Materials About the Petitioner: The materials provided did not significantly mention or detail the Petitioner’s contributions.
- Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases: Not applicable.
- Commercial Success in the Performing Arts: Not applicable.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The Petitioner did not provide evidence of receiving any major awards or prizes in the field of cybersecurity.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The materials submitted, including online articles and blogs, did not specifically mention the Petitioner’s contributions or detail their significance.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner’s work, such as user experience designs for cybersecurity platforms, was not shown to have significantly influenced the field. Endorsement letters from colleagues and articles about employer products were insufficient to demonstrate major significance.
Participation as a Judge:
There was no evidence presented that the Petitioner judged the work of others in the cybersecurity field.
Membership in Associations:
No documentation was provided showing membership in associations that require outstanding achievements.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of scholarly articles authored in professional publications.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The Petitioner demonstrated a leading or critical role in several cybersecurity projects, but this alone did not suffice to meet the criteria for extraordinary ability.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable to this case.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
While the Petitioner showed evidence of receiving a high salary, it was not enough to establish extraordinary ability.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable to this case.
Supporting Documentation
- Letters of Support: Provided by colleagues and employers detailing the Petitioner’s contributions to various projects.
- Online Articles and Blogs: Mentioned employer products but did not specifically highlight the Petitioner’s role.
- Project Descriptions: Details of the Petitioner’s involvement in cybersecurity design projects.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not meet the required criteria for demonstrating extraordinary ability in the cybersecurity field. The evidence provided was insufficient to show sustained national or international acclaim or that the Petitioner is among the top in the field.
Next Steps:
The Petitioner may consider gathering more robust and specific documentation of original contributions, significant awards, or other relevant criteria to support a future petition.
