Date of Decision: January 23, 2025
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Chemical Engineer
Field: Nondestructive Testing (NDT)
Nationality: Egypt
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met
- Judging the Work of Others (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv)): The petitioner submitted evidence of serving as an evaluator in the field of nondestructive testing. This was accepted as meeting the standard.
Criteria Not Met
- Membership in Associations (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii)): Submitted evidence of earning the highest certification level from an NDT society. USCIS determined certification was not equivalent to association membership. No proof that membership required outstanding achievements judged by national or international experts.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v)): Submitted letters from companies highlighting his role in extending operational life of facilities, introducing new technologies, and contributing to a \$4 billion oil refinery project. USCIS found insufficient evidence of originality or field-wide impact. No corroborating evidence of adoption by other organizations, citations in technical papers, or recognized innovations advancing NDT standards.
- Leading or Critical Role (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii)): Letters described his contributions as critical, including work on Egypt’s largest oil refinery. USCIS found details insufficient to show his contributions were of significant importance to overall organizational activities. Only one company was shown to have a distinguished reputation, but petitioner’s specific critical role was not adequately demonstrated.
- High Salary or Significantly High Remuneration (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix)): Claimed but not analyzed, since the petitioner failed to meet three criteria.
Key Points from the Decision
- Certification ≠ Membership: Professional certification does not qualify as association membership under USCIS standards.
- Support Letters Insufficient: Letters lacked independent corroboration and did not prove originality or field-wide significance.
- Critical Role Not Proven: Contributions were valuable to contractors but not shown as critical to organizations’ overall operations.
- Threshold Not Met: With only one criterion satisfied, petitioner did not meet the minimum of three required.
Final Merits Determination
The AAO dismissed the appeal. The petitioner failed to establish three regulatory criteria and could not advance to a final merits determination.
Supporting Documentation
- Judging Evidence: Proof of evaluating others’ work in NDT (accepted).
- Membership Evidence: Highest-level certification from an NDT society (not qualifying).
- Contribution Evidence: Letters from contractors citing project success and innovations (not qualifying).
- Leadership Evidence: Claimed critical roles in companies, lacking sufficient proof (not qualifying).
- Salary Evidence: Claimed but reserved.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner satisfied only one criterion (judging) and failed to meet the minimum of three. Evidence for membership, contributions, leadership, and salary did not meet regulatory standards.
