Date of Decision: August 9, 2016
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Software Architect
Field: Software Architecture
Nationality: Indian
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
None of the criteria were met according to the review.
Criteria Not Met:
- Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- The petitioner provided reference letters and evidence of presentations at conferences. However, the letters and presentations did not demonstrate how the petitioner’s contributions impacted the field as a whole.
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
- The petitioner presented a Master’s thesis and conference presentations. However, these did not satisfy the criterion of publication in professional or major trade publications or other major media.
- Leading or Critical Role:
- The petitioner submitted letters attesting to his skills and roles in projects but did not establish a leading or critical role within organizations of distinguished reputation.
- High Salary or Other Significantly High Remuneration:
- The petitioner provided evidence of his salary, but it did not demonstrate that his remuneration was significantly high compared to others in the field.
Key Points from the Decision
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- The petitioner’s letters and conference presentations did not show a substantial impact on the field beyond his immediate work context.
- The provided reference letters primarily corroborated the petitioner’s employment and experience without articulating an original contribution of major significance to the field.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
- The petitioner’s thesis was not published in a professional or major trade publication.
- Presentations at conferences were noted but did not meet the criterion of scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications or other major media.
Leading or Critical Role:
- Letters provided discussed the petitioner’s exemplary work on projects but did not address his relative position within the organizations or his overall impact.
High Salary or Other Significantly High Remuneration:
- The evidence of the petitioner’s salary did not demonstrate it was significantly high in relation to others in the field.
Supporting Documentation
- Reference Letters:
- Multiple letters from colleagues and clients detailing the petitioner’s skills and contributions.
- Master’s Thesis:
- A bound copy of the petitioner’s thesis.
- Conference Presentations:
- Pamphlets and PowerPoint presentations from conferences.
- Salary Evidence:
- Documents showing the petitioner’s salary and comparisons with prevailing wage levels.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not provide sufficient initial evidence to establish extraordinary ability. The documentation submitted did not meet the criteria for demonstrating extraordinary ability in the field of software architecture.
Next Steps: The petitioner may consider gathering additional evidence that specifically addresses the criteria for EB-1 extraordinary ability classification or consult with an immigration attorney for further guidance.
