Date of Decision: October 31, 2024
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: IT Consultant
Field: Information Technology and Systems Optimization
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 none of the claimed criteria were sufficiently supported by evidence, leading to dismissal of the appeal.
Criteria Not Met:
- Published Material About the Petitioner:
- Articles about the petitioner were submitted, but they did not demonstrate prominence in the field of IT consultancy. The AAO noted that the material lacked validation as professional or major media coverage.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- The petitioner’s claims of developing innovative optimization tools lacked independent corroboration of widespread adoption or recognition of significant impact in the field.
- Performance in a Leading or Critical Role for Distinguished Organizations:
- Documentation of roles in IT organizations failed to establish the distinguished reputation of these organizations or the petitioner’s critical impact.
- High Salary or Significantly High Remuneration:
- Evidence of salary was presented, but comparative data to establish significantly high earnings relative to peers in the field was insufficient.
Key Points from the Decision
Published Material and Contribution Evidence:
- Media coverage of the petitioner’s work did not meet the evidentiary standards to demonstrate prominence or extraordinary ability.
Salary Evidence:
- The petitioner provided salary information but failed to demonstrate that it was substantially higher than that of peers in similar roles.
Final Merits Determination:
- The AAO concluded that the petitioner failed to satisfy the evidentiary requirements of at least three criteria and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim in the field.
Supporting Documentation
Published Material Evidence: Articles that lacked corroboration as professional or major media coverage.
Contribution Evidence: Claims of innovative tools unsupported by evidence of significant field-wide impact.
Salary Evidence: Records of compensation insufficient to meet the standard of significantly high remuneration.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner failed to meet at least three regulatory criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The evidence did not establish extraordinary ability or the sustained national or international acclaim required for EB-1 classification.
