Date of Decision: NOV 27, 2018
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Staff Systems Test Engineer
Field: Wireless Communications
Nationality: [Not provided in the document]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
High Salary or Remuneration: The Beneficiary commands high earnings in relation to others in his field, satisfying the high salary criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix).
Participation as a Judge: The Beneficiary served on the Petitioner’s patent review board, which meets the judging criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv).
Leading or Critical Role: The Beneficiary performed in a critical role for the Petitioner, contributing significantly to the company’s success. This fulfills the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii).
Criteria Not Met:
Original Contributions of Major Significance: Although the Beneficiary’s work resulted in numerous patents, the evidence did not demonstrate that these contributions had a substantial impact on the overall field. This failed to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v).
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Findings: Not applicable in this case.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Findings: The submitted press coverage and announcements of new products did not mention the Beneficiary, thus not meeting the criterion for published material about the Beneficiary.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Findings: While the Beneficiary’s work led to 82 granted patents and over 230 pending patents, the evidence did not show that these patents had a substantial impact on the field. The citation history of the patents did not demonstrate the level of influence or recognition required for major significance.
Participation as a Judge:
Findings: The Beneficiary served on the Petitioner’s patent review board, but the reference letters did not provide specific details about the extent of his experience or the number of patents reviewed.
Membership in Associations:
Findings: Not applicable in this case.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Findings: Not applicable in this case.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Findings: The Beneficiary played a critical role in the Petitioner’s success, but the evidence did not show widespread acclaim or recognition by the broader field.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Findings: Not applicable in this case.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Findings: The Beneficiary commands a high salary in relation to others in his 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 products and services.
Recommendation Letters: Letters from colleagues and experts supporting the significance and impact of the Beneficiary’s contributions to the company.
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 Beneficiary’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 the Beneficiary’s 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.
