Date of Decision: October 26, 2022
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Entrepreneur and Researcher
Field: Cybersecurity
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
High Salary: The petitioner demonstrated that he received a high salary for services as shown by contracts or other reliable evidence.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner provided evidence of authorship of scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications or other major media.
Criteria Not Met:
Published Material: The petitioner did not demonstrate that the published material about him was sufficient. The articles were found to be about the threats and vulnerabilities in products rather than focusing on the petitioner’s achievements.
Leading or Critical Role: The petitioner did not sufficiently establish that the companies he worked for had a distinguished reputation, nor that his role in those companies was of significant importance to their success.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The petitioner did not pursue this claim on appeal, hence it was not considered.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
- The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of awards or prizes won that would qualify under the regulatory criteria for extraordinary ability.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
- The articles from various publications like Dark Horse, Toms Guide, SC Magazine, SPAMfighter News, and The Register mentioned the Petitioner but did not meet the criteria as they were not primarily about him or his work.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- The Petitioner initially claimed to meet the criterion for original contributions but did not pursue this claim on appeal, and thus it was deemed waived.
Participation as a Judge:
- There was no evidence submitted regarding the Petitioner’s participation as a judge of the work of others in the field of cybersecurity.
Membership in Associations:
- The Petitioner did not submit evidence of membership in associations that require outstanding achievements as criteria for membership.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
- The Petitioner met this criterion by demonstrating authorship of scholarly articles in cybersecurity.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
- The Petitioner’s claimed roles in companies were not proven to be leading or critical in organizations of distinguished reputation.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
- Not applicable as the field of cybersecurity does not involve artistic exhibitions or showcases.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
- The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that he commands a high salary in his field, meeting this criterion.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
- Not applicable to the field of cybersecurity.
Supporting Documentation
Articles and Publications: Several articles in professional magazines were provided but found insufficient to meet the published material criterion.
Letters from Employers: Letters confirming the petitioner’s role and salary but not adequately demonstrating the distinguished reputation of the organizations.
Evidence of Awards: Provided but not sufficiently significant to establish a distinguished reputation.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not meet the required criteria for extraordinary ability, as the evidence provided did not sufficiently establish his achievements or the distinguished reputation of the organizations he worked for.
Next Steps: The petitioner may consider additional evidence or alternative visa classifications if eligible.
