Date of Decision: March 16, 2015
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Systems Architect
Field: Information Technology
Nationality: India
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
High Salary or Remuneration:
The petitioner provided evidence of a high salary, with earnings statements and a memorandum indicating a significant annual salary and bonus. However, these earnings were received post-filing, thus ineligible for consideration at the time of the initial petition.
Criteria Not Met:
Judging the Work of Others:
The petitioner failed to provide adequate evidence of serving as a formal judge in their field. Routine supervisory duties, internal reviews, and informal evaluations were not sufficient.
Leading or Critical Role:
The petitioner did not establish performing in a leading or critical role for organizations with a distinguished reputation. Despite significant contributions to projects, there was no documentation differentiating the petitioner’s role from other team members or validating the distinguished reputation of the organizations.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The petitioner did not submit any published materials that recognized their contributions or achievements.
Membership in Associations:
The petitioner did not provide evidence of membership in associations that require outstanding achievements of their members.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Though initially considered met by the director, upon review, it was determined that the petitioner did not provide sufficient comparative evidence to demonstrate a high salary in relation to peers in the field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner did not present evidence of any major awards or prizes.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
No relevant published materials were submitted.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
No evidence of significant original contributions was provided.
Participation as a Judge:
The evidence did not demonstrate participation as a judge in a formal capacity.
Membership in Associations:
No evidence of membership in distinguished associations was presented.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner did not submit any scholarly articles.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner’s roles, while significant, were not sufficiently documented to establish leading or critical roles in organizations with distinguished reputations.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
While the petitioner’s salary was notable, it did not meet the criteria for being considered high relative to others in the field based on the evidence provided.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
- Earnings Statements:
Detailed earnings statements indicating monthly and annual gross pay. - Wage and Tax Statements:
Forms W-2 for the years 2010-2012 from multiple employers. - Employment Offer Letters:
Offer letters detailing salary and bonuses. - Salary Surveys and Reports:
Online wage library results and salary search results from various websites.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner failed to meet the initial evidence requirements of at least three criteria out of the ten regulatory criteria. The evidence provided did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner was among the small percentage at the very top of their field.
Next Steps: The petitioner may consider filing a motion to reopen or reconsider with new evidence or arguments.
