Date of Decision: DEC. 12, 2023
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Software Engineer
Field: Artificial Intelligence and Natural Language Processing
Nationality: [Not specified in provided text]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Criterion 1: Original Contributions of Major Significance
The petitioner provided reference letters and patent information to support this criterion. However, the letters did not demonstrate how the beneficiary’s contributions were of major significance in the field. They mentioned projects but lacked detailed evidence of their impact or influence.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
There was no mention of major, internationally recognized awards in the documentation provided.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The reference letters described the beneficiary’s work but did not provide published materials that highlighted the significance of these contributions in the field.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Despite the submission of patents and reference letters, the evidence did not establish that the beneficiary’s contributions had a major impact on the field of artificial intelligence and natural language processing.
Participation as a Judge:
There was no evidence provided to support the beneficiary’s participation as a judge of the work of others in the field.
Membership in Associations:
The petitioner did not submit evidence of the beneficiary’s membership in associations that require outstanding achievements as a condition of membership.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
There were no scholarly articles authored by the beneficiary submitted as evidence to meet this criterion.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner claimed the beneficiary played a leading role in projects but did not provide sufficient evidence to show the significance of these roles in the field.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
This criterion was not applicable to the petitioner’s field.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The petitioner did not provide evidence of the beneficiary receiving a high salary compared to others in the field.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
This criterion was not applicable to the petitioner’s field.
Supporting Documentation
- Reference Letters: Provided descriptions of projects but lacked details on the major significance of the contributions.
- Patents: Mentioned patents but did not elaborate on their impact or commercialization.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not demonstrate that the beneficiary met the required criteria for extraordinary ability, as the evidence provided was not sufficient to establish major significance or sustained national or international acclaim in the field.
Next Steps: Recommendations for the petitioner would be to gather more detailed and specific evidence that clearly demonstrates the beneficiary’s major contributions and impact in their field, as well as any national or international recognition received.
