Date of Decision: May 31, 2018
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Senior Product Manager
Field: Technical Product Management
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Leading or Critical Role:
As a Senior Product Manager for the petitioner, the beneficiary has performed in a critical role for an organization with a distinguished reputation. The record includes letters from company executives discussing the beneficiary’s specific responsibilities and stating that he led the development of one of the petitioner’s “most important product releases” and a source of “significant additional revenue.” Various articles demonstrate that the company has garnered a distinguished reputation.
Criteria Not Met:
Published Material:
The record includes various online articles about companies that employed the beneficiary and their software product launches. However, none of these articles are about the beneficiary. The articles discuss the companies’ revenue growth, stock valuation, quarterly losses, service offerings, and new products but do not name or identify the beneficiary. Therefore, the articles do not meet the regulatory criterion for published material about the beneficiary in major media.
Original Contributions:
The petitioner offered various recommendation letters that describe the beneficiary’s projects. However, these letters were insufficient to establish that his work rises to the level of original contributions of major significance in the field. The evidence did not show that his work has substantially influenced the field as a whole or otherwise rises to the level of an original contribution of major significance.
High Salary or Remuneration:
The petitioner provided evidence of the beneficiary’s salary, which was above the median but below the top decile in his field. Although the beneficiary received additional remuneration such as stock options and employee benefits, the petitioner did not offer comparative evidence demonstrating that the beneficiary’s remuneration is significantly high relative to others in the field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Not applicable based on the provided evidence.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The petitioner provided articles about the companies the beneficiary worked for, but these did not meet the criteria due to lack of focus on the beneficiary.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The recommendation letters did not establish that the beneficiary’s work has made a major impact in the field of technical product management.
Participation as a Judge:
Not applicable based on the provided evidence.
Membership in Associations:
Not discussed in the decision.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Not applicable based on the provided evidence.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner demonstrated that the beneficiary performed a critical role in the petitioning organization, meeting this criterion.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The petitioner provided evidence of the beneficiary’s salary and additional remuneration, but it was not sufficient to demonstrate that his earnings were significantly high relative to others in the field.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
The petitioner provided several pieces of evidence, including:
Letters from company executives discussing the beneficiary’s role and responsibilities.
Various articles demonstrating the company’s distinguished reputation.
Recommendation letters describing the beneficiary’s projects and contributions.
Evidence of the beneficiary’s salary and additional remuneration.
Conclusion
Final Determination:
The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to meet the initial criteria required for EB1 Extraordinary Ability classification. Although the beneficiary met one criterion, the evidence did not demonstrate a major contribution in the field of technical product management. Consequently, the petitioner failed to establish the level of expertise required for the classification sought.
Next Steps:
The petitioner may consider consulting with new legal counsel to explore any further options for appeal or other immigration benefits for which the beneficiary may be eligible.
