Date of Decision: October 24, 2024
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Information Technology Project Manager
Field: Human-Computer Interactive Digital Technologies
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
The petitioner sought to meet at least three of the ten regulatory criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Upon review, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) determined that the petitioner satisfied three criteria but failed to establish eligibility under the final merits determination.
Criteria Met:
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
- The petitioner co-authored papers published in Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) Journals on digital technology for musculoskeletal disorders and physiotherapy.
- Performance in a Leading or Critical Role for Distinguished Organizations:
- The petitioner served in critical roles at distinguished organizations, managing significant projects such as launching free LLC formation services and leading a portfolio of 20 digital products in legal and healthcare technology.
- High Salary or Significantly High Remuneration:
- Documentation of the petitioner’s salary demonstrated it was high relative to peers in her field.
Criteria Not Met:
- Published Material About the Petitioner:
- The petitioner submitted articles from TechTimes and Outlook India, but the publications were not substantiated as major media, and the articles were not primarily about the petitioner’s work in her field.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance in the Field:
- Letters from colleagues highlighted the petitioner’s contributions, such as a semi-automated form-based chat patent, but the evidence failed to demonstrate significant field-wide impact or national acclaim.
Key Points from the Decision
Authorship Evidence:
- Published articles met the criterion for scholarly publications, but citation metrics did not sufficiently establish the petitioner as among the very top in her field.
Leadership and Critical Roles:
- Evidence of leadership contributions in legal and healthcare technology projects was sufficient but did not establish field-wide acclaim.
Published Material Evidence:
- Articles failed to demonstrate recognition of the petitioner’s work in prominent media or publications.
Final Merits Determination:
- Despite meeting three criteria, the AAO concluded that the totality of the evidence failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of her field.
Supporting Documentation
Authorship Evidence: Published scholarly articles in ACM Journals with citation metrics.
Leadership Evidence: Letters from executives documenting leadership roles in distinguished organizations.
Published Material Evidence: Articles in TechTimes and Outlook India, deemed insufficient for meeting the criterion.
Contribution Evidence: Patent documentation and letters, lacking evidence of field-wide recognition or acclaim.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner met three regulatory criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). However, the evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or recognition required for EB-1 classification.
