Date of Decision: September 14, 2017
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Software Developer
Field: Software Development, Information Technology
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Awards: The Petitioner provided evidence of awards under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i).
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The Petitioner submitted scholarly articles under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi).
Criteria Not Met:
- Published Material: The Petitioner failed to meet the criteria for published material about the individual under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) due to issues with translation and verification of the materials.
- Original Contributions: The Petitioner did not satisfy the original contributions of major significance under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v).
- High Salary: The Petitioner did not establish that he commanded a high salary or significantly high remuneration for services in relation to others prior to or at the time of filing the petition.
Key Points from the Decision
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The Petitioner submitted videos and articles related to his work, but they were deemed insufficient due to translation issues and lack of verification. The materials were more promotional than informative about the Petitioner’s accomplishments.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner’s contributions in software development were reviewed, but the evidence did not demonstrate significant impact or recognition in the field.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Petitioner met the authorship criterion with evidence of publications in professional journals.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The evidence of salary provided by the Petitioner did not satisfy the high salary criterion because it was related to a period after the petition was filed.
Supporting Documentation
- Job Offer Letter: Provided a job offer letter dated September 2016, indicating employment starting in November 2016.
- Paystubs: Included paystubs from December 2016 to March 2017.
- Salary Comparisons: The Petitioner presented documentation of comparable salaries.
- Videos and Articles: Submitted promotional materials and videos that were not certified translations or properly verified.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was denied. The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to meet the required criteria for extraordinary ability, particularly in the areas of published material, original contributions, and high salary.
Reasoning:
The Petitioner’s additional documentation failed to demonstrate eligibility under the necessary criteria, and issues with translation and verification further weakened the case. The motion to reopen and reconsider were both denied.
Next Steps:
The Petitioner may need to gather more substantial and verified evidence or consider other visa categories if applicable.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
