Date of Decision: September 28, 2018
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Technology Entrepreneur
Field: Business
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Director found the Petitioner submitted sufficient evidence to meet this criterion initially. However, upon review, it was determined that while the Petitioner has made original contributions, the significance of these contributions in the field was not adequately demonstrated.
Leading or Critical Role:
The Petitioner demonstrated he performed in a leading role by leading a New Product Innovation Group and currently serving as the Director of Product Innovation and New Businesses. His critical role at previous employment included developing a crucial product and systems architecture.
High Salary or Other Significantly High Remuneration:
The Petitioner provided evidence of a high salary in relation to others in the field, supported by documentation from the U.S. Department of Labor, PayScale, and Glassdoor.
Criteria Not Met:
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The articles from Yahoo Finance, TechCrunch.com, Tech Times, and others were deemed not to be about the Petitioner but rather about the companies he co-founded. A significant article from Le Temps was excluded due to an uncertified translation and lack of original source documentation.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Summary of findings: Not specifically addressed in the decision, indicating no significant awards or prizes were presented as evidence.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Summary of findings: The articles provided did not focus directly on the Petitioner but on the companies he co-founded. Only one article from Le Temps focused on the Petitioner but was excluded due to documentation issues.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Summary of findings:
- Contributions in improving a company’s user engagement strategy were noted but lacked evidence of major significance.
- Launching the largest social network in India and creating a disruptive technology acquired by another company were recognized but not sufficiently corroborated to establish major significance.
Participation as a Judge:
Summary of findings: Not addressed in the decision, suggesting no evidence was presented for this criterion.
Membership in Associations:
Summary of findings: Not addressed in the decision, suggesting no evidence was presented for this criterion.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Summary of findings: Not addressed in the decision, suggesting no evidence was presented for this criterion.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Summary of findings:
Leading a group of 25 employees and serving as Director of Product Innovation and New Businesses.
Developed crucial product architecture, improving user engagement and company growth.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Summary of findings: Not applicable based on the field of business.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Summary of findings:
Provided evidence of high salary compared to peers, supported by various salary databases.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Summary of findings: Not applicable based on the field of business.
Supporting Documentation
List of supporting documents and summaries:
Articles from Yahoo Finance, TechCrunch.com, Tech Times, and others: Focused on companies rather than the Petitioner.
Article from Le Temps: Excluded due to uncertified translation and lack of original source documentation.
Letters from industry professionals: Provided support but lacked detailed evidence of the significance of contributions.
Salary documentation: Verified high salary compared to industry standards.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal dismissed.
Reasoning:
The Petitioner did not submit the required initial evidence of a major, internationally recognized award or documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria listed in the regulations.
Overall review of the submitted materials did not demonstrate the sustained acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought.
Next Steps:
The Petitioner may consider gathering more robust and detailed evidence to support the criteria that were not met.
Ensuring all documentation, especially translations, meet USCIS standards is crucial for any future submissions.
