Date of Decision: April 7, 2023
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Senior Project Manager
Field: Project Management, Machine Learning, and Artificial Intelligence
Nationality: [Nationality not specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Participation as a Judge: The petitioner met this criterion by providing evidence of their role in judging relevant activities.
- High Salary: The petitioner demonstrated that they command a high salary, although this criterion was later contested on appeal.
Criteria Not Met:
- Awards: The petitioner’s award for “Outstanding Product Design” did not demonstrate national or international recognition.
- Membership in Associations: Membership in the IEEE did not meet the standard for requiring outstanding achievements judged by experts.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance: Letters provided did not sufficiently demonstrate major significance in the field.
- Leading or Critical Role: Evidence did not show that the petitioner’s role was leading or critical to the overall organization rather than specific projects or accounts.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner received an award for “Outstanding Product Design,” but it was not established as nationally or internationally recognized.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Not applicable in this case.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The letters of support did not provide detailed, specific information to prove that the petitioner’s contributions were of major significance in the field.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner satisfied this criterion by providing evidence of their involvement in judging activities within the field.
Membership in Associations:
The IEEE membership criteria were not considered to require outstanding achievements, failing to meet this criterion.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Not applicable in this case.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner’s roles were significant for specific projects but did not demonstrate a leading or critical role for the overall organization.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable in this case.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The petitioner’s salary was initially considered high relative to the field, but on appeal, this was not sufficiently proven.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable in this case.
Supporting Documentation
- Letters of Support: Provided but lacked specific details to establish major significance.
- Award Documentation: Insufficient to prove national or international recognition.
- Salary Documentation: Provided, but the comparative data did not conclusively establish a high salary relative to others in the field.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal Dismissed
Reasoning: The petitioner did not meet the initial evidentiary requirements, nor did they demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim necessary for the classification sought.
Next Steps:
The petitioner may consider gathering more substantial and specific evidence of their achievements and contributions to reapply or pursue other immigration pathways.
