Date of Decision: February 7, 2023
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
- Profession: Network Communications and “Internet of Things” Specialist
- Field: Network Communications and “Internet of Things”
- Nationality: [Not specified in the document]
Summary of Decision
- Initial Decision: Denied
- Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
- Description: The petitioner provided evidence of authorship of scholarly articles in the field of network communications and the “Internet of Things.”
- Performing in a Leading or Critical Role:
- Description: The petitioner demonstrated that they have performed in a leading or critical role in their field.
Criteria Not Met:
- Prizes or Awards:
- Description: The petitioner did not establish receipt of a major, internationally recognized award.
- Membership:
- Description: The petitioner did not provide evidence of membership in associations that require outstanding achievements of their members.
- Published Material:
- Description: The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of published material about them in professional or major trade publications or other major media.
- Judging:
- Description: The petitioner did not demonstrate that they have served as a judge of the work of others in their field.
- Original Contributions:
- Description: The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of original contributions of major significance to their field.
- Commercial Success:
- Description: The petitioner did not meet the criteria for commercial success in the performing arts.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
- Summary of Findings:
- The petitioner did not claim or provide evidence of any major, internationally recognized awards.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
- Summary of Findings:
- The petitioner provided several documents that appeared to be articles or in-person interviews, but these did not meet the regulatory requirements.
- Key Quotes or References:
- “The translations of this material are accompanied by the deficient certifications that significantly diminishes the evidentiary value of this material.”
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- Summary of Findings:
- The petitioner claimed eligibility based on participation on committees that produced standards and roles in receiving patents.
- The appellate materials did not establish the impact of these contributions in the broader field.
- Key Quotes or References:
- “Simply claiming a group effort to create standards without evidence showing how those standards impacted the field are insufficient under this criterion.”
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
- Summary of Findings:
- The petitioner did not address the Director’s actual reasoning for not granting the criterion for commercial success, which is limited to the performing arts.
Supporting Documentation
- Document 1: Scholarly Articles:
- Summary: Provided evidence of multiple scholarly articles authored by the petitioner.
- Document 2: Leading or Critical Role:
- Summary: Evidence supporting the petitioner’s leading role in various projects within their field.
- Document 3: Committee Participation:
- Summary: Documents related to the petitioner’s involvement in standard-setting committees, though these lacked sufficient certified translations and impact evidence.
Conclusion
- Final Determination: Appeal Dismissed
- Reasoning:
- The petitioner did not meet the initial evidence requirements of either a one-time achievement or documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria.
- The submitted evidence did not demonstrate the sustained national or international acclaim required for the classification sought.
- Next Steps:
- Recommendations for the petitioner include ensuring all foreign language documents have proper certified translations and providing clear, organized evidence that demonstrates the impact of their contributions on the broader field.
