Date of Decision: August 25, 2020
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Business Executive
Field: Engineering Innovations and Business Development of Industrial and Defense Equipment
Nationality: [Not Provided in Document]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
None of the criteria met the evidentiary requirements as determined by the Director and affirmed upon appeal.
Criteria Not Met:
Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards: The petitioner submitted a certificate from the Government of Pakistan Ministry of Defense Production for his company. However, the certificate was not awarded to the petitioner individually and did not demonstrate national or international recognition.
Published Material: The petitioner relied on an advertisement published in Jane’s Defence Weekly. The material was found not to be about the petitioner specifically, and it was written by the petitioner, not by others about him.
Participation as a Judge: The petitioner claimed to judge the work of others based on his business agreements and roles. However, the evidence provided lacked specific, detailed instances and corroborating documentation to establish his participation as a judge of others’ work.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that his contributions had significantly impacted the field of engineering innovations and business development.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner claimed an advertisement in Jane’s Defence Weekly as his authored work. However, the material did not meet the standards of a scholarly article written for learned persons in the field.
Leading or Critical Role: The petitioner provided evidence of his roles in various companies, but did not demonstrate that these roles were leading or critical to the organizations’ overall success. The documentation did not sufficiently establish the distinguished reputation of these companies.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner’s certificate from the Government of Pakistan Ministry of Defense Production was not sufficient to demonstrate national or international recognition. The certificate was awarded to the petitioner’s company, not to him individually, and it did not establish the criteria used for its issuance or its recognition within the field.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The petitioner submitted an advertisement in Jane’s Defence Weekly. However, this material did not qualify as published material about him in professional or major trade publications or other major media, as it was authored by the petitioner and focused on his company’s product.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner’s business agreements and roles were acknowledged, but the evidence did not establish that these contributions had major significance in the field of engineering innovations and business development.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner provided documents indicating his business roles, but lacked specific, detailed instances of judging the work of others, and did not demonstrate this participation as significant in his field.
Membership in Associations:
Not applicable, as no membership in associations was discussed.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner claimed an advertisement as his authored work, but it did not meet the standards of a scholarly article for learned persons in the field.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner’s roles in various companies were significant but did not demonstrate that they were leading or critical for the organizations as a whole. The evidence did not establish the distinguished reputation of these companies.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable, as the petitioner’s field does not involve artistic exhibitions or showcases.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not applicable, as no evidence of high salary or remuneration was discussed.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable, as the petitioner’s field does not involve commercial successes in the performing arts.
Supporting Documentation
Reference Letters: Provided letters recognized the petitioner’s roles and contributions but lacked sufficient detail to meet the claimed criteria.
Award Documents: Included a certificate from the Government of Pakistan Ministry of Defense Production, but it did not demonstrate the petitioner’s individual recognition.
Published Articles: Included an advertisement in Jane’s Defence Weekly, but it did not meet the requirements for published material about the petitioner in major media.
Participation Letters: Included documents about the petitioner’s business roles but lacked specific and detailed corroboration.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not meet the initial evidentiary criteria and failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or recognition in his field. The evidence provided was found to be insufficient to establish his eligibility for the EB1 classification.
Next Steps: The petitioner may consider gathering more comprehensive and corroborative evidence to support his claims, focusing on independent recognition and demonstrating how his work has had a significant impact on his field.
