Date of Decision: July 17, 2024
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Senior Director of Product Management
Field: Technology Product Management
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
The petitioner claimed eligibility under eight regulatory criteria, but the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) determined that the petitioner met three of the criteria.
Criteria Met:
- Participation as a Judge of the Work of Others:
- The petitioner participated as a judge for professional journal reviews.
- The evidence provided showed sufficient participation in reviewing work in the field of product management.
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
- The petitioner authored articles in major trade and professional publications, meeting the regulatory requirements.
- Performance in a Leading or Critical Role:
- The petitioner held a senior director role for organizations with distinguished reputations.
Criteria Not Met:
- Receipt of Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards:
- Evidence of recognition, such as the “40 Under 40 Innovators” list, did not meet the standard of national or international awards for excellence in the field.
- Membership in Associations:
- Membership in IEEE and other associations did not require outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- The petitioner’s claimed contributions, including breakthroughs in real-time simulation, lacked corroborating evidence of major industry-wide impact.
- Published Material About the Petitioner:
- The petitioner provided white papers and promotional materials from his employer, but they did not satisfy the requirement of professional or major trade publications discussing his work.
- High Salary or Remuneration:
- Salary data provided did not adequately compare the petitioner’s earnings to those of peers in the same field or establish extraordinary remuneration.
Key Points from the Decision
Final Merits Determination:
While the petitioner met three regulatory criteria, the AAO determined that the evidence, when viewed as a whole, did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.
Judging the Work of Others:
The petitioner’s participation in journal reviews was acknowledged but did not establish acclaim within the broader field of product management.
Original Contributions:
The petitioner’s achievements were praised in letters of recommendation, but the evidence failed to demonstrate significant influence on the field at large.
High Salary Evidence:
Claims of high remuneration were unsupported by credible or comparative data sufficient to establish extraordinary ability.
Supporting Documentation
Judging Activities: Evidence of professional journal reviews.
Authorship Evidence: Scholarly articles in trade and professional publications.
Leadership Roles: Proof of senior-level roles at reputable organizations.
Salary Data: Submitted but insufficient to meet the regulatory standard for extraordinary remuneration.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner met three regulatory criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) but failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or recognition as one of the small percentage at the very top of his field.
