Date of Decision: November 16, 2022
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Specialist in Aerospace Technology and Modeling
Field: Aerospace Technology and Air Transportation Demand Modeling
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner authored scholarly articles, including a notable paper published in the journal “Aviation” in 2007, which focused on forecasting aviation transport demand using innovative modeling techniques.
- Participation as a Judge: The petitioner participated as a judge of the work of others in her field, fulfilling one of the evidentiary criteria.
Criteria Not Met:
- Membership in Associations: The petitioner did not establish membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements. Evidence showed membership in professional associations but did not demonstrate that these memberships required outstanding achievements.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance: While the petitioner made original contributions, the evidence did not support that these contributions were of major significance in the field.
- Leading or Critical Role: The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence that her role was either leading or critical for organizations with a distinguished reputation.
- High Salary or Remuneration: The petitioner did not demonstrate that she commanded a high salary in relation to others in her field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Not applicable.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Not applicable.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner’s contributions in aerospace technology, while original, were not demonstrated to be of major significance. Reference letters indicated some adoption of her methods, but there was insufficient evidence to show widespread impact.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner met the criterion of participating as a judge of others’ work in her field, which is a recognized contribution under the EB-1 criteria.
Membership in Associations:
The petitioner’s memberships in professional associations were not shown to require outstanding achievements, failing to meet the criterion.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner authored multiple scholarly articles, including a significant 2007 publication. However, the impact and significance of these articles were not sufficiently demonstrated.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner did not provide convincing evidence that her role was critical or leading in distinguished organizations.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The petitioner did not demonstrate that her salary was significantly higher than her peers, which is necessary to meet this criterion.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles: Copies of published articles and citation analysis.
- Participation as a Judge: Documentation of participation as a judge in professional contexts.
- Reference Letters: Multiple letters from professionals in the field supporting the petitioner’s claims.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not meet the necessary evidentiary criteria to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim in the field of aerospace technology and modeling. The evidence provided was insufficient to show that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of her field.
Next Steps: The petitioner may consider providing additional evidence or documentation to support her claims and reapply or seek alternative immigration options.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
Cite as Matter of G-M-, ID# 22143529
Document: NOV162022_01B2203.pdf
