Date of Decision: February 5, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Software Engineer
Field: Software Engineering (specializing in big data and machine learning)
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Judging: The Beneficiary served as a judge for an engineering competition and reviewed technical book chapters for software engineering texts.
High Salary or Remuneration: The Beneficiary commanded a high salary in relation to other software engineers.
Criteria Not Met:
Awards: The Beneficiary’s placements in hackathons and other competitions were not recognized as nationally or internationally acclaimed awards.
Membership in Associations: The Beneficiary’s memberships did not demonstrate outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts in the field.
Published Materials: Articles and media coverage were primarily about the Beneficiary’s employers and not about him specifically.
Original Contributions: The Beneficiary’s contributions were not shown to be of major significance in the field.
Leading or Critical Role: The Beneficiary’s roles were not sufficiently demonstrated as leading or critical to the organizations’ success, nor were the organizations shown to have a distinguished reputation.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won: The Beneficiary participated in various hackathons and competitions, but the provided evidence did not establish these as nationally or internationally recognized awards.
Published Materials About the Petitioner: Articles and media references were mainly about the Beneficiary’s employers or projects, not specifically about his work in the field.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: Letters and provisional patents mentioned the Beneficiary’s contributions but did not sufficiently establish their major significance in the field.
Participation as a Judge: The Beneficiary judged an engineering competition and reviewed technical book chapters.
Membership in Associations: Memberships in IVY, Founders Network, Hive Global, and HPAIR did not meet the criterion of requiring outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Authorship of scholarly articles: Articles written by the Beneficiary were not shown to be of major significance in the field.
Leading or critical role performed: The Beneficiary’s roles in various organizations were not demonstrated to be leading or critical.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases: Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration: The Beneficiary’s salary was high relative to other software engineers.
Commercial successes in the Performing Arts: Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
Provisional patent application titled “System and Method for Data Analysis”
Letters from colleagues and superiors attesting to the Beneficiary’s contributions
Articles written by the Beneficiary
Evidence of participation in hackathons and competitions
Membership confirmations in various associations
Paystubs, W-2, and salary surveys demonstrating high remuneration
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The Beneficiary did not meet the required initial evidence criteria of at least three out of the ten regulatory criteria. The provided evidence was insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or recognition of extraordinary ability in the field.
Next Steps: The Petitioner may consider providing more robust and comprehensive evidence that directly addresses each of the criteria required for demonstrating extraordinary ability, potentially focusing on securing more significant national or international recognition and impact in the field.
