Date of Decision: January 29, 2021
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Applied Mechanics Engineer
Field: Applied Mechanics and Engineering
Nationality: [Not specified in the document]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Authorship of scholarly articles:
The petitioner has authored several scholarly articles that contribute to the academic and research community in his field.
Participation as a judge of the work of others:
The petitioner has participated as a judge for the work of others in his field, fulfilling one of the criteria for extraordinary ability.
Criteria Not Met:
Membership in associations that require outstanding achievements:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that his memberships were based on outstanding achievements.
Published material in major trade publications or other major media:
The petitioner did not establish that there were significant published materials about him in major trade publications or media.
Original contributions of major significance:
The petitioner provided evidence of original contributions, but it did not sufficiently demonstrate that these contributions had a major impact on the field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Not applicable as the petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of awards or prizes that meet the criterion.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that major trade publications or media outlets have recognized his work.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner’s research and contributions, while significant, were not proven to have a major impact on the field. Letters of support and citation records did not provide enough evidence of widespread recognition or implementation.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner has participated as a judge of the work of others, meeting the evidentiary criterion for this category.
Membership in Associations:
The petitioner’s claimed memberships did not meet the requirements for associations that necessitate outstanding achievements for membership.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner has authored scholarly articles, fulfilling this criterion for extraordinary ability.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:Not applicable as the petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to meet this criterion.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not applicable as this criterion was not claimed or documented by the petitioner.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable to this case.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Recommendation: Provided general support but lacked detailed evidence of major significance.
Research Papers and Citations: Demonstrated originality but not widespread impact.
Conference Participation: Showed involvement in the field but not major significance.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal Dismissed
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not meet the initial requirement of satisfying at least three of the ten criteria for extraordinary ability.
The evidence provided did not establish the necessary level of sustained national or international acclaim or recognition at the top of the field.
Next Steps:
- The petitioner may consider gathering additional, more substantial evidence of extraordinary ability and recognition.
- Consulting with an immigration attorney to better document and present qualifications could improve future petitions.
