Date of Decision: January 29, 2021
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Director of Engineering
Field: Software Engineering
Nationality: [Not specified in the document]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments:
The petitioner has been employed as a director of software engineering, demonstrating a leading role in a distinguished organization.
High salary or other significantly high remuneration in relation to others in the field:
The petitioner provided evidence of a high salary compared to others in his field.
Criteria Not Met:
Original contributions of major significance:
The petitioner provided evidence of original contributions, but the documentation did not sufficiently demonstrate that these contributions had a major impact on the field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Not applicable as the petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of awards or prizes that meet the criterion.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Not applicable as this criterion was not claimed or documented by the petitioner.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner’s contributions, while significant to his employers, were not proven to have a major impact on the field of software engineering. Letters of support highlighted his work but lacked specific examples of widespread influence or implementation.
Participation as a Judge:
Not applicable as this criterion was not claimed or documented by the petitioner.
Membership in Associations:
Not applicable as this criterion was not claimed or documented by the petitioner.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Not applicable as this criterion was not claimed or documented by the petitioner.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner has performed in a leading role as a director of software engineering, meeting this criterion for extraordinary ability.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The petitioner’s salary was higher than average for his field, fulfilling the criterion for high remuneration.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable as this criterion was not relevant to the petitioner’s field.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Recommendation: Provided general support but lacked detailed evidence of major significance.
Salary Documentation: Included comparative wage data showing a high salary relative to others in the field.
Press Releases and Articles: Provided additional context but did not establish major significance in the field.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal Dismissed
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not meet the initial requirement of satisfying at least three of the ten criteria for extraordinary ability.
The evidence provided did not establish the necessary level of sustained national or international acclaim or recognition at the top of the field.
Next Steps:
The petitioner may consider gathering additional, more substantial evidence of extraordinary ability and recognition.
Consulting with an immigration attorney to better document and present qualifications could improve future petitions.
