Date of Decision: August 27, 2024
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Quality Assurance Engineer
Field: Information Technology and Software Engineering
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
The petitioner claimed eligibility under three regulatory criteria but failed to meet the evidentiary requirements for any of them.
Criteria Not Met:
- Participation as a Judge of the Work of Others:
- The petitioner claimed participation as a mentor for a bootcamp but failed to demonstrate that mentoring constituted judging the work of others as required by the regulation.
- The evidence showed involvement in bootcamp coordination and mentoring but lacked probative documentation of judging roles.
- Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
- The petitioner provided no evidence to support this criterion and abandoned the claim during the appeal.
- Leading or Critical Role for Distinguished Organizations:
- The petitioner’s role as a senior quality assurance engineer was highlighted. However, the evidence did not establish that the organization had a distinguished reputation or that the petitioner’s role was critical to its success.
Key Points from the Decision
Mentorship vs. Judging:
- The petitioner claimed mentoring students at a bootcamp was equivalent to judging. The AAO clarified that mentoring is not synonymous with judging and does not meet the regulatory standard.
Commercial Success:
- The petitioner did not submit any supporting evidence for this criterion and waived it on appeal.
Director’s and AAO’s Findings:
- The Director and AAO concluded that the petitioner failed to meet the required three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3).
Final Merits Determination:
- A final merits determination was not conducted as the petitioner did not meet the initial evidentiary threshold.
Supporting Documentation
Judging Evidence: Bootcamp mentorship records, deemed insufficient for regulatory compliance.
Leadership Evidence: Documentation of employment as a senior quality assurance engineer, lacking proof of critical organizational impact.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not meet any regulatory criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The record failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or recognition as one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of information technology and software engineering.
