Date of Decision: October 14, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Software Developer
Field: Internet Technologies
Nationality: [Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The Petitioner authored several scholarly articles published in professional publications in his field, satisfying the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi).
Criteria Not Met:
Published Material: The Petitioner submitted two newspaper articles about him, but the publications did not meet the requirements of being major media and lacked necessary information about the author, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii).
Judging: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence regarding the events or competitions where he participated as a judge, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv).
Leading or Critical Role: The Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that he performed in a leading or critical role for organizations with a distinguished reputation, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii).
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
No evidence provided.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The materials submitted did not meet the criterion for professional or major media.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Not applicable.
Participation as a Judge:
The evidence provided was insufficient to establish the Petitioner’s participation as a judge in relevant events.
Membership in Associations:
Not applicable.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Petitioner authored several scholarly articles, meeting this criterion.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The Petitioner’s roles were not sufficiently documented to demonstrate leading or critical roles in distinguished organizations.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not applicable.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
The Petitioner provided various supporting documents, including articles, letters of reference, and evidence of judging activities. However, these did not collectively establish the required criteria for extraordinary ability.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not demonstrate that he met at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. The evidence provided did not establish his published materials as major media, did not sufficiently prove his judging roles, and did not demonstrate leading or critical roles in distinguished organizations.
Next Steps: The Petitioner may consider submitting additional evidence that clearly establishes the major significance of their contributions or explore other immigration options that may better fit their qualifications.
