Date of Decision: February 7, 2023
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Aerospace Engineer
Field: Composite Materials
Nationality: [Nationality not specified in the document]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Judging: The petitioner has served as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization.
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner has authored scholarly articles in professional journals or other major media.
Criteria Not Met:
- Prizes or Awards: The petitioner provided the 2020 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) award, but the Director initially determined that the petitioner did not establish the award was nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field of endeavor. However, upon appeal, it was recognized that the award meets the necessary requirements.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Director decided that the petitioner did not meet this criterion, and the appeal did not change this determination.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won
The petitioner provided documentation of the 2020 AIAA award, which is internationally recognized and awarded by a reputable professional association. Initially, the Director overlooked evidence related to the award’s recognition but upon appeal, this criterion was met.
Judging
The petitioner provided evidence of judging the work of others in their field, meeting the criterion for judging.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles
The petitioner has authored scholarly articles in the field of composite materials, which were published in professional journals, fulfilling the criterion for authorship of scholarly articles.
Original Contributions of Major Significance
The Director determined that the petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish original contributions of major significance to the field of composite materials. This criterion was not met upon appeal.
Signature Issues
The Director noted concerns about the authenticity of the petitioner’s signatures on various forms, suspecting they might be electronically transposed. This issue was highlighted for further investigation on remand.
Supporting Documentation
- 2020 AIAA Award Documentation: Included details about the award, its criteria, and its international recognition.
- Judging Evidence: Documentation of the petitioner’s role as a judge in professional competitions and reviews.
- Scholarly Articles: Copies and references to the petitioner’s published articles in recognized journals.
- Personal Statement: The petitioner’s personal statement supporting their case for extraordinary ability.
- Additional Supporting Letters: Letters from professionals in the field attesting to the petitioner’s qualifications and contributions.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Remanded
Reasoning:
The petitioner met three of the required criteria after appeal, addressing some of the initial decision’s shortcomings. However, issues regarding the validity of signatures on submitted forms must be resolved.
Next Steps:
- Address Signature Concerns: The petitioner should provide original signatures or valid explanations for the signatures questioned by the Director.
- Final Merits Determination: The Director will reevaluate the petition, considering the petitioner’s eligibility under the Kazarian framework and make a final merits determination.
This blog post outlines the appeal process and key aspects of the decision, emphasizing the importance of meeting specific criteria and addressing procedural concerns to achieve a favorable outcome.
