Date of Decision: April 21, 2021
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Engineer
Field: Computer Hardware and Software Development
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The beneficiary authored six papers in peer-reviewed journals. Although these publications alone do not place the beneficiary at the top of the field, they were accepted as meeting the criterion.
Leading or Critical Role: The beneficiary held significant roles in various projects at his current and former employers. These roles were recognized as meeting the criterion.
High Salary: The beneficiary received a high salary, which was accepted as meeting the criterion.
Criteria Not Met:
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The beneficiary claimed significant contributions in the field of engineering, but the evidence provided did not sufficiently demonstrate the widespread impact or recognition of these contributions.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The beneficiary did not claim any major, internationally recognized awards.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The beneficiary provided evidence of his scholarly articles being cited 25 times. However, this citation rate was not sufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The beneficiary’s contributions to projects and methodologies were acknowledged but did not demonstrate the major significance required for this criterion.
Participation as a Judge:
The beneficiary’s role in judging academic work was not emphasized in the decision.
Membership in Associations:
The beneficiary did not provide evidence of memberships in associations that require outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The beneficiary authored scholarly articles, but the citation impact was minimal and did not demonstrate significant influence in the field.
Supporting Documentation
Publications Documentation:
Evidence of six scholarly articles authored by the beneficiary, with details on citations and influence in the field.
Judging Roles Documentation:
Limited details on any judging roles were provided.
Association Memberships:
No evidence was provided for memberships in associations that require outstanding achievements.
Original Contributions:
Letters and statements about the beneficiary’s research contributions, lacking first-hand evidence of significant impact.
High Salary Documentation:
Evidence of a high salary and compensation package, including signing bonuses and restricted stock units.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not provide new facts or documentary evidence to support reopening the case.
The arguments presented did not demonstrate an error in the application of law or USCIS policy.
The beneficiary’s accomplishments, while significant, did not meet the highly restrictive criteria for extraordinary ability classification.
Next Steps:
The petitioner may consider gathering more substantial evidence of national or international acclaim and reassessing the criteria for extraordinary ability before any future filings.
