Date of Decision: September 22, 2021
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Technology Consultant
Field: Computer Science and Engineering
Nationality: Indian
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Judging the Work of Others: The petitioner provided evidence of performing peer reviews for the IEEE Transactions on Cloud Computing, meeting the criterion for judging the work of others in the same or an allied field.
Leading or Critical Role: The petitioner demonstrated involvement as a founding member and technical architect at an organization with a distinguished reputation, fulfilling the criterion for performing in a leading or critical role.
Criteria Not Met:
Membership in Associations: The petitioner’s senior membership in the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) was not deemed to meet the criterion of membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements, as the requirements for senior membership were found to fall short of demonstrating “outstanding achievements.”
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The petitioner’s work on specific technologies, while original, was not proven to be of major significance beyond his employer and its clientele. Letters of support and media reports did not sufficiently establish the broader impact required for this criterion.
High Salary or Remuneration: The petitioner did not demonstrate that his salary was significantly high in relation to others in his field. Comparisons provided were not deemed appropriate, and discrepancies in job classification further weakened this claim.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner did not claim any major, internationally recognized awards, focusing instead on meeting the alternative evidentiary criteria.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
There were media reports and articles related to the petitioner’s employer, but these did not provide sufficient evidence of the petitioner’s individual acclaim and recognition in the field.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
While the petitioner made original contributions, such as developing specific technologies, the evidence did not establish these contributions as having major significance in the broader field of computer science and engineering.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner provided evidence of peer reviewing for an IEEE journal, meeting this criterion.
Membership in Associations:
The petitioner’s senior membership in IEEE did not meet the required standard of outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
No specific mention or evidence was provided regarding the authorship of scholarly articles.
Leading or Critical Role:
The petitioner’s role as a founding member and technical architect at a reputable organization was recognized.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable to this case.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The petitioner did not demonstrate commanding a high salary relative to others in his field, and comparisons provided were not adequate.
Commercial successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable to this case.
Supporting Documentation
Peer Review Certificates: Evidence of the petitioner performing peer reviews for IEEE Transactions on Cloud Computing.
Employment Records: Documentation of the petitioner’s role and responsibilities as a founding member and technical architect.
IEEE Membership Documentation: Evidence of the petitioner’s senior membership in IEEE.
Salary Comparisons: Internet excerpts and salary data from various sources.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal Dismissed
Reasoning: The petitioner did not meet the necessary criteria for demonstrating extraordinary ability. Specifically, the evidence provided did not establish at least three of the regulatory criteria required under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The petitioner’s membership in IEEE, contributions, and salary were not deemed to meet the standards for demonstrating sustained national or international acclaim.
Next Steps:
The petitioner may consider seeking additional evidence or documentation to address the deficiencies noted in the appeal decision.
Consultation with an immigration attorney specializing in EB1 cases may provide further guidance on strengthening the petition.
