Date of Decision: December 31, 2020
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Field of Expertise: Geotechnical Engineering
Petitioner Information
Profession: Associate Professor and General Director
Field: Geotechnical Engineering
Nationality: [Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Participation as a Judge: The Petitioner met this criterion by demonstrating engagement in peer review of publications in his field, satisfying the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv).
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The Petitioner met this criterion by providing evidence of his scholarly articles published in professional journals and conference proceedings, satisfying the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi).
Criteria Not Met:
Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards: The Petitioner claimed several awards, including the “Best Graduation Assignment” competition sponsored by a Venezuelan engineering company and the “Best Senior Thesis in Civil Engineering” award from the Venezuelan Geotechnical Society (SVDG). However, these awards were limited to students and early career professionals, failing to demonstrate national or international recognition for excellence. The evidence did not establish the national or international significance of these awards, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i).
Membership in Associations: The Petitioner claimed membership in the Venezuelan Geotechnical Society (SVDG) and the International Society for Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering (ISSMGE). However, the evidence did not demonstrate that these memberships required outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii).
Published Material: The Petitioner provided articles from professional journals and newsletters but did not establish these as major media or primarily about him. The articles did not identify the author or provide sufficient context, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii).
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Petitioner submitted letters praising his contributions to the field of geotechnical engineering, but the letters did not provide specific details on the impact and significance of his work. The evidence did not demonstrate that his contributions were widely recognized or had a significant influence in the field, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v).
Leading or Critical Role: The Petitioner claimed leading roles in several organizations, including the Venezuelan Geotechnical Society (SVDG) and ISSMGE. However, the evidence did not establish the distinguished reputation of these organizations or provide detailed descriptions of his duties and responsibilities, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii).
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of receiving nationally or internationally recognized awards.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The Petitioner provided articles but did not establish these as major media or primarily about him.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner’s contributions were not demonstrated to have major significance in the field of geotechnical engineering.
Participation as a Judge:
The Petitioner participated as a judge in professional settings, meeting this criterion.
Membership in Associations:
The Petitioner did not establish that his memberships required outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Petitioner authored several scholarly articles, meeting this criterion.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The Petitioner did not establish his roles as leading or critical in distinguished organizations.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not applicable.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
The Petitioner provided various supporting documents, including letters of recommendation, articles, and evidence of awards. However, these did not collectively establish the required criteria for extraordinary ability.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not demonstrate that he met at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. While the Petitioner satisfied the criteria for participation as a judge and authorship of scholarly articles, the evidence provided did not establish his receipt of nationally or internationally recognized awards, his memberships in associations requiring outstanding achievements, his published material in major media, or his original contributions of major significance. The totality of the evidence did not support a finding of sustained national or international acclaim or that the Petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of his field.
Next Steps: The Petitioner may consider submitting additional evidence that clearly establishes the major significance of his contributions or explore other immigration options that may better fit his qualifications.
