Date of Decision: February 13, 2025
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1A Extraordinary Ability
Field of Expertise: Information Security Engineering
Petitioner Information
Profession: Senior Security Engineer
Field: Information Security Engineering
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied – Director found petitioner satisfied only two criteria (judging and high salary).
Motion Outcome: Denied – Director reaffirmed denial.
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed – AAO upheld denial.
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met (per Director):
- Judging the Work of Others (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv)) – Evidence showed petitioner evaluated the work of peers.
- High Salary or Other Significantly High Remuneration (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix)) – Salary evidence indicated compensation above average, but not sufficient to meet three overall criteria.
Criteria Not Met:
- Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Awards (i) – Evidence of a technical competition win in 2013 did not establish national or international recognition beyond the specific event.
- Membership in Associations Requiring Outstanding Achievements (ii) – Senior membership in IEEE did not require outstanding achievements as judged by national or international experts; requirements were based primarily on experience and references.
- Published Material About the Petitioner (iii) – Submitted article did not meet the regulatory requirement of being “about the petitioner”; it referenced hacking in general and included only a quote.
- Scholarly Articles (vi) – Presentations and talks were not proven to have been published in professional journals or trade media; evidence lacked transcripts or published versions.
- Leading or Critical Role (viii) – Letters describing petitioner’s contributions were broad and lacked specific evidence of leadership or field-wide critical impact.
Key Points from the Decision
- Award evidence did not demonstrate broad recognition across the field, only recognition within a single event.
- IEEE senior membership requirements were not shown to reflect outstanding achievements, and references did not qualify as evaluation by recognized experts.
- Submitted media was not actually about the petitioner and lacked an identifiable author as required.
- Conference presentations and references did not meet the standard for published scholarly articles.
- Letters describing petitioner’s roles lacked detailed evidence of leadership or critical significance.
- Appeal dismissed because petitioner failed to demonstrate three criteria or sustained acclaim under final merits.
Supporting Documentation
- Letters of Intent: Provided by colleagues and supervisors but lacked detail showing leadership or critical significance.
- Business Plan: Not applicable.
- Advisory Letter: Opinion letters submitted but given little probative value due to lack of detail and reliance on restating regulatory language.
- Other Supporting Documentation: Award screenshots, IEEE membership confirmation, article excerpts, and presentation announcements reviewed but insufficient.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal dismissed.
Reasoning: Petitioner demonstrated only two criteria (judging and high salary) and failed to establish awards, membership, published material, scholarly authorship, or leading/critical roles. The evidence did not prove extraordinary ability, sustained acclaim, or standing among the top of the field.
