Date of Decision: NOV 8, 2018
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Software Engineer
Field: Software Engineering
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Judging the Work of Others: The Petitioner served as a judge for a hackathon in 2015 and reviewed scholarly papers in 2011, fulfilling the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv).
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The Petitioner co-authored an article published in 2010 in a peer-reviewed journal, meeting the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi).
High Salary or Remuneration: The Petitioner provided evidence of a high salary in 2016 and 2017 compared to others in the field, meeting the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix).
Criteria Not Met:
Awards and Prizes Won: The Petitioner mentioned winning a hackathon in 2016, but the evidence did not show national or international recognition or significant media coverage, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i).
Membership in Associations: The Petitioner claimed membership in an association, but the evidence did not demonstrate that this membership required outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts, failing the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii).
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Petitioner held patents and contributed to commercial growth, but the evidence did not show that these contributions were of major significance to the field, failing the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v).
Leading or Critical Role: The Petitioner’s roles in various companies were noteworthy, but the evidence did not show significant recognition in the field, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii).
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Findings: The hackathon win in 2016 did not demonstrate national or international acclaim.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Findings: Not applicable in this case.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Findings: The Petitioner’s contributions, while significant, did not demonstrate the required level of major significance or widespread impact in the field of software engineering.
Participation as a Judge:
Findings: The Petitioner reviewed scholarly papers and judged a hackathon, meeting this criterion. However, the reviews did not demonstrate the sustained national or international acclaim required for this highly restrictive classification.
Membership in Associations:
Findings: The memberships provided did not require outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts, failing this criterion.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Findings: The Petitioner authored a scholarly article, fulfilling this criterion. However, the publication record did not sufficiently demonstrate that the Petitioner is among the small percentage at the top of his field or has a career of acclaimed work.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Findings: The Petitioner’s roles in various companies did not demonstrate significant recognition or influence in the field.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Findings: Not applicable in this case.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Findings: The Petitioner demonstrated a high salary compared to others in the field, meeting this criterion.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Findings: Not applicable in this case.
Supporting Documentation
Articles and Reviews: Various articles and reviews about the Petitioner’s work in software engineering.
Recommendation Letters: Letters from colleagues and experts supporting the significance and impact of the Petitioner’s contributions to the field of software engineering.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal Dismissed
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not meet the required initial evidence of either a one-time major achievement or at least three of the ten criteria for extraordinary ability. The evidence presented did not establish the Petitioner’s sustained national or international acclaim or that he is among the small percentage who have risen to the very top of his field.
Next Steps: The Petitioner may consider gathering more robust evidence of his contributions’ significance and potentially reapplying if additional substantial evidence can be presented. Consulting with an immigration attorney for further guidance and preparation may also be beneficial.
