Date of Decision: February 3, 2025
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Software Developer and Entrepreneur
Field: Information Technology
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met
- Participation as a Judge of the Work of Others (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv))
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi))
- Leading or Critical Role for Distinguished Organizations (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii))
Criteria Not Met
- Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i))
Claimed acquisition deal did not materialize; evidence was inconclusive. - Published Material About the Petitioner (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii))
Submitted materials lacked credibility and reach as professional or major media. - Original Contributions of Major Significance (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v))
Evidence of SAP/ERP platform contributions showed business value but not sustained acclaim or field-wide impact. - High Salary or Remuneration (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix))
Salary evidence (\$200,000 CEO/CTO offer) lacked comparison with industry standards; contingent acquisition terms were not proven.
Key Points from the Decision
- ERP Software Platform: Acknowledged as innovative in cannabis industry but not proven to establish acclaim at the top of the field.
- Proposed Acquisition Evidence: Incomplete and unsupported; unsigned agreement and no proof transaction occurred.
- Letters of Support: Demonstrated business interest but not sustained national or international acclaim.
- METRC Vendor Status: Approval as integration vendor noted but not shown as an industry-defining recognition.
- Final Merits Standard: Petitioner successful in career but not at the “very top of the field” as required by statute.
Final Merits Determination
The AAO concluded that while the petitioner satisfied three criteria, the totality of evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or demonstrate that he belongs to the small percentage at the very top of his field.
Supporting Documentation
- Judging Evidence: Documentation of reviewing/judging work in SAP/ERP field.
- Authorship Evidence: Two published textbooks on SAP software.
- Leadership Evidence: CEO/CTO roles in ERP-focused enterprises.
- Awards/Acquisition Evidence: Proposed sale documents (unsigned, not consummated).
- Published Material Evidence: Articles and press coverage (not qualifying).
- Contribution Evidence: Expert letters and client contracts (insufficient to prove acclaim).
- Salary Evidence: Offer letters and compensation records (not qualifying).
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal dismissed.
Reasoning: Petitioner demonstrated three criteria but failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim or recognition as one of the small percentage at the top of the field.
