Date of Decision: October 19, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: IT Project Manager
Field: Information Technology
Nationality: [Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Approved
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Judging: The Petitioner participated as a judge of the work of others in the field, meeting the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv).
Criteria Not Met:
Membership in Associations: The Petitioner’s memberships in the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) and as a senior member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) did not require outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii).
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that his contributions were of major significance in the field, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v).
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The Petitioner did not establish that his publications were scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi).
High Salary or Remuneration: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of a high salary compared to others in his field, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix).
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of awards that meet the required criterion.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of published material in major media about him.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner’s contributions, while significant, did not demonstrate major significance in the field.
Participation as a Judge:
The Petitioner participated as a judge for several technical digests, meeting this criterion.
Membership in Associations:
The Petitioner’s memberships did not meet the criterion of requiring outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Petitioner did not establish that his publications were scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Not applicable.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of a high salary compared to others in his field.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
The Petitioner provided various supporting documents, including recommendation letters, articles, and evidence of judging activities. However, these did not collectively establish the required criteria for extraordinary ability.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not demonstrate that he met at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. The evidence provided did not establish his memberships in associations requiring outstanding achievements, his published material as major media, or his contributions as of major significance. The Petitioner did not show that his published materials were in major media or that his contributions were widely recognized.
Next Steps: The Petitioner may consider submitting additional evidence that clearly establishes the major significance of their contributions or explore other immigration options that may better fit their qualifications.
