Date of Decision: SEPT. 14, 2017
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Software Developer
Field: Information Technology
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Awards:
The petitioner satisfied the criterion for awards by presenting evidence of recognized achievements in their field.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner provided documentation of authored scholarly articles in professional publications, fulfilling this criterion.
Criteria Not Met:
Published Material About the Petitioner:
The petitioner submitted translations of video clips and television interviews that were not certified as required under the regulations, and these materials were deemed insufficient as they related to the petitioner’s work rather than being about the petitioner.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The evidence provided, including reference letters, did not demonstrate that the petitioner’s software applications constituted original contributions of major significance.
High Salary or Remuneration:
The petitioner did not establish that they 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
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner met the awards criterion by providing evidence of significant awards recognized in their field. However, details of these awards were not elaborated upon in the decision.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The decision highlighted that the submitted materials were insufficient as they were not properly certified and related to the petitioner’s work rather than about the petitioner.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner’s evidence did not demonstrate significant original contributions, and the reference letters provided did not substantiate the claimed contributions adequately.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner successfully demonstrated authorship of scholarly articles, meeting this criterion without the need for comparable evidence.
High Salary or Remuneration:
The petitioner’s evidence of high salary post-dated the filing of the petition and thus was not considered valid for meeting the criterion at the time of filing.
Supporting Documentation
- Job Offer Letter: Dated September 2016, indicating a start date of November 2016.
- Pay Stubs: Copies from December 2016 to March 2017, used to support the high salary claim.
- Translations of Video Clips: Not certified, hence not accepted.
- Reference Letters: Used to support claims of original contributions and high salary, but found insufficient.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The motions to reopen and reconsider were both denied.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not offer new facts demonstrating eligibility, nor did they establish that the previous decision was incorrect based on the evidence. The materials provided did not sufficiently demonstrate the petitioner’s extraordinary ability in the specified criteria.
Next Steps:
- Ensure all documentation is properly certified.
- Provide comprehensive evidence of eligibility for each claimed criterion.
- Consider additional criteria or stronger evidence for future petitions.
