Date of Decision: September 24, 2018
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Senior Manager in Data Science
Field: Computationally Driven Analytics
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Director initially concluded that the Beneficiary fulfilled this criterion. However, upon review, it was found that the Beneficiary’s contributions, such as research in drug discovery financing, while original, did not rise to the level of major significance in the field. The evidence presented, including media reports, conference presentations, and citation records, did not demonstrate a significant impact or wide implementation in the field.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Beneficiary has authored scholarly articles published in professional journals, meeting the criterion for authorship of scholarly articles.
Criteria Not Met:
Leading or Critical Role:
The evidence provided did not sufficiently demonstrate that the Beneficiary’s role was critical to the outcomes of the organization’s activities. Letters from colleagues and supervisors did not provide detailed and specific examples of how the Beneficiary’s contributions were of significant importance to the organization.
High Salary or Other Significantly High Remuneration:
The Beneficiary’s salary was found to be lower than the national average and less than the wages for fully competent employees in the same field in the Washington area. Additionally, extra incentives received were not proven to be significantly high compared to others in similar positions.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Not specifically addressed in the decision, indicating no significant awards or prizes were presented as evidence.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Not addressed in the decision, suggesting no such evidence was presented.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Beneficiary’s research in drug discovery financing was original but did not demonstrate major significance. Media reports and letters of recommendation highlighted the potential impact of the research but did not provide evidence of existing significant influence in the field.
Participation as a Judge:
Not addressed in the decision, suggesting no such evidence was presented.
Membership in Associations:
Not addressed in the decision, suggesting no such evidence was presented.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Beneficiary’s scholarly articles in professional journals met this criterion.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The provided evidence did not show detailed and specific examples of significant contributions to the organization’s success, failing to meet this criterion.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable based on the field of computationally driven analytics.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The Beneficiary’s salary and additional incentives were not proven to be high compared to others in similar positions, failing to meet this criterion.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable based on the field of computationally driven analytics.
Supporting Documentation
The documentation provided included letters from professionals and colleagues highlighting the Beneficiary’s contributions and projects, evidence of publications in professional journals, and salary comparisons. These documents, while supportive, did not sufficiently establish that the Beneficiary’s contributions were of major significance or that his salary was high compared to others in the field.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal dismissed.
Reasoning:
The Petitioner did not submit the required initial evidence of a major, internationally recognized award or documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria listed in the regulations. The overall review of the submitted materials did not demonstrate the sustained acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought.
Next Steps:
The Petitioner may consider gathering more robust and detailed evidence to support the criteria that were not met. Ensuring that all documentation, especially letters of support, contain specific details about the significance and impact of the Beneficiary’s contributions on the field is crucial for any future submissions.
