Date of Decision: September 24, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Principal Platform Engineer
Field: Computer Science
Nationality: [Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Judging: The Petitioner reviewed papers for journals and conferences, fulfilling the judging criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv).
Scholarly Articles: The Petitioner authored scholarly articles in professional publications, meeting the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi).
Criteria Not Met:
Original Scientific Contributions: The Petitioner argued that academic awards, manuscript reviews, and highly cited papers demonstrated original contributions of major significance. However, the evidence did not establish the widespread implementation, impact, or influence required for major significance.
Leading or Critical Role: The Petitioner claimed to have played a leading role at his company, but the evidence provided did not sufficiently demonstrate that his contributions were critical to the outcomes or activities of the organization.
High Salary or Remuneration: The Petitioner provided salary comparisons to computer programmers in California, but did not establish how his salary as a principal platform engineer in New York was high relative to others in the same position.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
No evidence provided.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
No evidence provided.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner’s evidence of original contributions did not demonstrate the required level of significance or influence in the field of computer science.
Participation as a Judge:
The Petitioner participated as a judge for journals and conferences, meeting this criterion.
Membership in Associations:
No evidence provided.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Petitioner authored several scholarly articles, meeting the criterion but lacking evidence of major significance.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The Petitioner’s role and contributions at his company did not sufficiently demonstrate a critical impact on the organization.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The Petitioner’s salary comparison to computer programmers in California did not establish that his salary was high relative to other principal platform engineers in New York.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
The Petitioner provided various supporting documents, including academic awards, citation metrics, recommendation letters, and salary comparisons. However, these did not collectively establish the required criteria for extraordinary ability.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not meet the required evidentiary criteria to establish extraordinary ability. The evidence provided did not demonstrate major significance, critical roles, or high salary relative to others in the field.
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.
