Date of Decision: OCT 12, 2018
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Information Technology Executive
Field: Information Technology
Nationality: [Not provided in the document]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Leading or Critical Role: The Petitioner provided evidence of his role as a technical deputy with a company that counts some of Iran’s largest banks as clients. He leads all technical departments for the company and is its highest-paid employee. This meets the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii).
High Salary or Remuneration: The Petitioner submitted evidence that he earned a high salary in comparison to others in similar positions within Iran. The salary report indicated that his earnings were significantly higher than the average for senior managers and executives in production, operation, programming, and web development roles. This meets the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix).
Criteria Not Met:
Receipt of Lesser Recognized Prizes or Awards: The Petitioner claimed several awards but did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that these were nationally or internationally recognized for excellence. The provided evidence was primarily certificates of participation, and the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he received a prize or award other than acknowledgments of participation. This fails the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i).
Participation as a Judge: The Petitioner asserted that he served as a judge in the information technology field in three different settings. However, the evidence provided did not sufficiently demonstrate that he judged the work of others in the same or an allied field. The documentation lacked details regarding his duties, the entities judged, or the criteria by which they were judged. This fails the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv).
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Petitioner claimed contributions that included a marketing book and participation in a startup accelerator program. However, the provided evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate how these contributions had a major impact on the field. The documentation lacked details on how these contributions were recognized as majorly significant by the broader field. This fails the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v).
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Findings: The Petitioner’s awards were based on participation and did not demonstrate recognized excellence in the field of information technology.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Findings: Not applicable in this case.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Findings: The Petitioner’s contributions did not demonstrate the required level of major significance or widespread impact in the field of information technology.
Participation as a Judge:
Findings: The Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate actual participation in judging the work of others in the field of information technology.
Membership in Associations:
Findings: Not applicable in this case.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Findings: Not applicable in this case.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Findings: The Petitioner’s role as a technical deputy met this criterion. However, his other roles did not demonstrate significant recognition or influence in the field.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Findings: Not applicable in this case.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Findings: The Petitioner demonstrated a high salary compared to others in similar positions, meeting this criterion.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Findings: Not applicable in this case.
Supporting Documentation
Articles and Reviews: Various articles and reviews about the Petitioner’s work in information technology.
Recommendation Letters: Letters from colleagues and experts supporting the significance and impact of the Petitioner’s contributions to the field of information technology.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal Dismissed
Reasoning:
The Petitioner did not meet the required initial evidence of either a one-time major achievement or at least three of the ten criteria for extraordinary ability. While the Petitioner met two of the ten criteria, the totality of the evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or demonstrate that the Petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of his field.
Next Steps:
The Petitioner may consider gathering more robust evidence of his contributions’ significance and potentially reapplying if additional substantial evidence can be presented. Consulting with an immigration attorney for further guidance and preparation may also be beneficial.
