Date of Decision: April 23, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Software Engineer
Field: Software Development
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met
Leading or Critical Role: The Petitioner met the criterion for a leading or critical role by holding a prominent position in several organizations. He co-founded a media consultancy company and a wiki-style travel website, where he served as CEO and co-created its platform.
High Salary or Remuneration: The Petitioner provided sufficient evidence of a high salary relative to others in the field. Documentation showed an annual salary of $230,000 plus a bonus, which is significantly higher than the 90th percentile salary for software developers in the United States.
Criteria Not Met
Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards: The Petitioner claimed several awards but did not establish that they were nationally or internationally recognized. The awards were given to companies or projects, not the individual.
Published Material in Major Media: The Petitioner provided articles from online publications. However, the articles focused on the organizations rather than the Petitioner, and the publications were not established as major media.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Petitioner claimed significant contributions in the field, supported by letters from colleagues and investors. However, the evidence did not demonstrate how these contributions were widely implemented or significantly impacted the field.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The Petitioner authored a book on deep learning and contributed chapters to other books. However, the evidence did not establish that these publications were in major trade publications or other major media.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not establish that he personally received nationally or internationally recognized awards.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that published materials about him were in major trade or professional publications or other major media.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate original contributions of major significance in the field. The letters lacked specific details on how the contributions significantly influenced the field.
Participation as a Judge:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Membership in Associations:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner authored several scholarly articles, but they were not published in major trade publications or other major media.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner held a leading role in several organizations, satisfying this criterion.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner provided sufficient evidence of a high salary relative to others in the field.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Supporting Documentation
Award Materials: Provided but did not establish national or international recognition for the individual.
Articles and Publications: Included articles from online publications that did not meet the standards for major media coverage or were not primarily about the Petitioner.
Letters from Colleagues and Organizations: Praised the Petitioner’s work but lacked sufficient detail to demonstrate major significance or critical roles.
Salary Documentation: Provided and sufficient for establishing high remuneration.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner met two criteria but did not provide sufficient evidence to meet at least three of the ten criteria. The Petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field. The totality of the evidence did not support a finding of the required acclaim and recognition for the classification sought.
Next Steps: The Petitioner must provide more substantial and specific evidence to meet the criteria for extraordinary ability classification.
