Date of Decision: February 26, 2021
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Software Development Engineering Manager
Field: Computer Software and Hardware Development
Nationality: [Not specified in the provided text]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Original contributions of major significance: The Beneficiary made significant contributions while working for the Petitioner, including developing technologies like on-device emergency caller location algorithms and leading teams to successful product launches that impacted the industry.
Authorship of scholarly articles: The Beneficiary authored several scholarly articles during his graduate studies, though these were not recent.
Leading or critical role: The Beneficiary held a leading role in developing and launching significant technologies and products for the Petitioner.
High salary: Initially claimed but later determined not to meet the criteria due to inappropriate comparison with non-managerial roles.
Criteria Not Met:
High salary: The comparison of the Beneficiary’s salary to those of non-managerial software developers was deemed inappropriate. The Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary commands a high salary in relation to other managerial software developers.
Additional criteria: Other criteria were not claimed or established in the provided documentation.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Summary of findings: The Beneficiary received the Petitioner’s “President Award for Commitment to Industry” in 2019. However, the significance of this award on a national or international scale was not demonstrated.
Key quotes or references: “The Petitioner did not demonstrate the recognition or significance of the recent award on a national or international scale.”
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Not applicable
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Summary of findings: The Beneficiary’s contributions included developing life-saving technologies and leading critical projects. Despite these achievements, the evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.
Key quotes or references: “[The Beneficiary] led the development and commercialization of [the Petitioner’s] technology, which provides life-saving location data for emergency calls.”
Participation as a Judge:
Not applicable
Membership in Associations:
Not applicable
Authorship of scholarly articles:
Summary of findings: The Beneficiary authored five scholarly articles during his graduate studies. However, these publications were not recent and did not demonstrate a career of sustained national or international acclaim.
Key quotes or references: “The Petitioner did not submit evidence showing the significance of the Beneficiary’s authorships or how his overall publications compare to others who are viewed to be at the very top of the field.”
Leading or critical role performed:
Summary of findings: The Beneficiary held a leading role in significant projects, including the development of emergency call location technologies and features for the Petitioner’s products.
Key quotes or references: “[The Beneficiary] and his team were instrumental in enabling the successful launches of significant connectivity technologies.”
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Summary of findings: The Beneficiary’s salary was not shown to be high in comparison to others in managerial roles. The Petitioner did not provide evidence of consistent high earnings or recognition based on his salary.
Key quotes or references: “The Petitioner did not demonstrate how the Beneficiary’s salary compared to others at the very top of his field.”
Commercial successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable
Supporting Documentation
Peer review activity: Not applicable
Patents: The Beneficiary was listed as an inventor on nine patents, but the significance of these patents in establishing sustained acclaim was not demonstrated.
Publications and citations: The Beneficiary’s articles were cited 22 times, but this citation rate was not sufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.
Awards: The Beneficiary received an internal award from the Petitioner, but its significance was not established.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal dismissed.
Reasoning: The Beneficiary did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence provided did not support the level of recognition and influence required for the EB1 Extraordinary Ability classification.
Next Steps
Recommendations: The Petitioner may consider gathering more robust and independent evidence of the Beneficiary’s sustained impact and significance within the field, securing credible letters of support, and reapplying with a stronger case.
