Date of Decision: August 30, 2024
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Software Engineer
Field: Enterprise Software and Network Security
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Withdrawn and remanded for further determination
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
The petitioner sought to meet five regulatory criteria, of which three were determined to be satisfied upon appeal.
Criteria Met:
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
- The petitioner authored scholarly articles in professional journals and major media publications. The Director and the AAO both concluded that this criterion was met.
- High Salary or Other Significantly High Remuneration:
- The petitioner demonstrated a salary significantly above the 89th percentile for software engineers in the same geographic location, as verified by wage data from the Department of Labor.
- Performance in a Leading or Critical Role for Distinguished Organizations:
- Evidence demonstrated the petitioner’s work in ad-pacing services for a distinguished technology company, with substantial internal and external business impact.
Criteria Not Met:
- Published Material About the Petitioner:
- Articles and references provided were found insufficient to meet the criterion, as they were not primarily focused on the petitioner’s work.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- The petitioner provided letters and documentation of contributions; however, the evidence failed to demonstrate significant field-wide impact or recognition.
Key Points from the Decision
High Salary Evidence:
- The petitioner’s salary exceeded the 89th percentile for software engineers in the region, satisfying this criterion.
Critical Role Evidence:
- The petitioner’s role in ad-pacing services at a distinguished technology company was recognized as both critical and impactful, meeting the regulatory requirements.
Published Material and Contributions:
- Articles and letters provided insufficient evidence of widespread recognition or major field-wide impact.
Director’s and AAO’s Findings:
- The AAO overturned the Director’s findings for the high salary and critical role criteria, determining that the petitioner met the required three criteria for eligibility.
Supporting Documentation
Authorship Evidence: Scholarly articles in recognized professional journals.
Salary Evidence: Documentation of significantly high remuneration compared to peers.
Role Evidence: Letters and documentation of critical contributions to a distinguished technology company.
Published Material Evidence: Articles and references not primarily focused on the petitioner’s work.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The Director’s decision was withdrawn, and the matter was remanded for a final merits determination.
Reasoning:
The petitioner met three regulatory criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The Director must now evaluate the totality of the evidence to determine if the petitioner demonstrates sustained national or international acclaim and recognition as one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of software engineering.
