Date of Decision: February 16, 2023
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Product Manager
Field: Artificial Intelligence and Robotics
Nationality: [Not provided]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards:
- The Beneficiary received awards for developing software building blocks and a Digital Innovation competition award. However, these awards were deemed insufficient to reflect sustained national or international acclaim in AI and robotics.
- Authorship of scholarly articles:
- The Beneficiary authored scholarly articles in IEEE publications, which are recognized in the field of electronic and electrical engineering.
- Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations:
- The Beneficiary held critical roles at companies involved in AI systems for self-driving cars and robotics, contributing significantly to their projects.
Criteria Not Met:
- Membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements:
- No evidence was provided to establish membership in associations that require outstanding achievements of their members.
- Published material about the alien in professional or major media:
- Many submitted articles lacked necessary details such as dates and authors, and some articles were not about the Beneficiary or his work directly.
- Original contributions of major significance:
- The Beneficiary’s contributions, while original, were not demonstrated to have major significance in the field. Evidence showed commercial success but did not establish a major impact on the AI and robotics field as a whole.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
- The Beneficiary received several awards related to innovation and entrepreneurship, but they were not deemed sufficient for sustained national or international acclaim in AI and robotics.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
- Many articles mentioned the Beneficiary or his company but did not focus on his specific work or contributions. Some lacked required details to qualify under the criterion.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- The Beneficiary’s patents and innovations were recognized, but the evidence did not demonstrate that his contributions had a major impact on the field of AI and robotics.
Participation as a Judge:
- Not applicable.
Membership in Associations:
- No applicable memberships were provided.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
- The Beneficiary’s scholarly articles published in IEEE conferences were recognized, contributing to the field of AI and robotics.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
- The Beneficiary’s leadership roles in companies developing AI systems and robotics were acknowledged, but the evidence did not demonstrate sustained acclaim or recognition in the field.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
- Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
- Not applicable.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
- Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
- Prizes or Awards: Documents detailing the awards received in 2016 for software development and the Digital Innovation competition.
- Scholarly Articles: Publications in IEEE conferences and symposiums.
- Patents: Evidence of patents in AI and robotics.
- Media Coverage: Various articles and media mentions, though many lacked specific details required for the criterion.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
- The evidence provided did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary’s achievements rose to the level of sustained national or international acclaim necessary for the EB1 extraordinary ability classification.
Next Steps:
- The petitioner may consider providing additional evidence of major contributions to the field, further substantiating the significance of the Beneficiary’s work, and addressing the deficiencies noted in the decision.
