Date of Decision: December 18, 2024
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Systems Administrator (Cybersecurity)
Field: Cybersecurity and Computer Science
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
The petitioner sought to demonstrate eligibility under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) by satisfying at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. Upon review, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) determined that the petitioner did not meet the necessary criteria to establish eligibility.
Criteria Met
- Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner provided documentation of significant contributions in the field of cybersecurity, including technical innovations and implementations. The Director determined that the evidence met the regulatory standard. - Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner submitted several research papers and a presentation slide deck. However, upon further review, the AAO withdrew the Director’s determination that this criterion was met, as the articles were not demonstrated to have been published in professional or major trade publications.
Criteria Not Met
- Membership in Associations That Require Outstanding Achievements:
The petitioner claimed eligibility based on his membership in the International Systems Security Association (ISSA). However, the AAO determined that ISSA does not require outstanding achievements for general membership, nor does it have a selection process judged by recognized national or international experts. - Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Director initially found that the petitioner met this criterion, but the AAO later determined that the submitted materials were coursework-related papers that had not been published in major trade or professional publications.
Key Points from the Decision
- Membership Deficiencies: The petitioner’s ISSA membership did not meet the regulatory standard as it lacked evidence of requiring outstanding achievements judged by experts.
- Authorship Issues: The submitted scholarly articles were determined to be coursework rather than published works in major trade or professional journals.
- Final Merits Determination Not Conducted: Since the petitioner did not meet three criteria, the AAO did not proceed with a final merits determination.
Final Merits Determination
The AAO concluded that the petitioner failed to meet at least three regulatory criteria and did not establish eligibility for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability.
Supporting Documentation
Original Contributions Evidence: Technical documentation detailing cybersecurity innovations.
Membership Evidence: ISSA membership card and bylaws, which did not demonstrate the required standards for outstanding achievement.
Authorship Evidence: Research papers and presentation slides, lacking proof of publication in major trade or professional journals.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner failed to meet the evidentiary requirements for at least three regulatory criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or position the petitioner among the very top of the field.
