Date of Decision: November 30, 2023
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Software Engineer and Developer
Field: Sciences
Nationality: [Nationality not specified in the document]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Judging the Work of Others (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv)): The petitioner met the criterion for judging the work of others.
Criteria Not Met:
- Membership in Associations (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii)): The petitioner claimed membership in an elite network for software developers, but it was determined to be a networking site rather than a professional association requiring outstanding achievements of its members.
- Published Material About the Individual (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii)): The petitioner provided an article about himself, but it did not meet the requirements of including the title, date, and author of the material.
- High Salary or Remuneration (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix)): The petitioner provided evidence of his salary, but it was insufficient without a direct comparison to others in the field.
- Leading or Critical Role (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii)): This criterion was not addressed in detail because the petitioner did not meet at least two other criteria necessary to reach the minimum requirement.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner did not provide evidence of receiving a major, internationally recognized award.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The provided article about the petitioner did not meet the required standards as it lacked an identified author.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petition did not include sufficient evidence to support claims of original contributions of major significance.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner successfully demonstrated his role in judging the work of others, fulfilling one of the criteria.
Membership in Associations:
The petitioner’s membership in a networking site was deemed insufficient as it did not meet the definition of a professional association requiring outstanding achievements.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
There was no mention of the petitioner authoring scholarly articles that met the required criteria.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
This was not fully evaluated due to the petitioner not meeting the minimum number of criteria.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable to this case.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The petitioner’s salary evidence lacked the necessary comparative analysis.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable to this case.
Supporting Documentation
- Petitioner’s Membership Information: Documentation provided but deemed insufficient for the professional association criterion.
- Article About the Petitioner: Did not meet regulatory requirements.
- Salary Information: Lacked comparative context and validation from the source.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not meet the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria. Therefore, a final merits determination was not necessary. The petitioner’s evidence did not support the required sustained national or international acclaim.
Next Steps:
The petitioner may consider gathering more substantial evidence that clearly meets the regulatory criteria or seek alternative visa classifications that may better fit his achievements and circumstances.
