Date of Decision: March 13, 2018
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Chief Mechanic
Field: Automotive Mechanics (Luxury and Exotic Automobiles)
Nationality: [Not specified in the provided document]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation
The Petitioner was the lead mechanic for a distinguished racing team and played a key role in their racing successes.
Criteria Not Met:
Documentation of the alien’s receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor
The evidence provided did not sufficiently demonstrate that the Petitioner’s involvement in first-place victories constituted nationally or internationally recognized awards for excellence.
Documentation of the alien’s membership in associations in the field for which classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts
The Petitioner’s completion of specialized technical training and participation in promotional campaigns did not meet the criteria for outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media, relating to the alien’s work in the field for which classification is sought
The submitted articles were not about the Petitioner and did not demonstrate that the publications were major media.
Evidence of the alien’s original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field
The Petitioner’s contributions, while important to specific projects and companies, did not demonstrate major significance in the broader field of automotive mechanics.
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field
The provided salary information did not sufficiently show that the Petitioner earned a high salary relative to others in the field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The Petitioner did not provide sufficient documentation to demonstrate that his contributions led to nationally or internationally recognized awards.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The submitted materials were not specifically about the Petitioner and did not meet the required standards for major trade publications or media.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner’s work, while valuable, did not rise to the level of original contributions of major significance within the automotive field.
Participation as a Judge:
Not applicable.
Membership in Associations:
The Petitioner did not demonstrate that his memberships required outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Not applicable.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that he played a critical role for a distinguished racing team.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The provided evidence did not adequately demonstrate that the Petitioner commanded a high salary in relation to others in the field.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
The appeal included various recommendation letters, articles, and salary information. However, the evidence provided was insufficient to meet the regulatory criteria for demonstrating extraordinary ability.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not submit the required initial evidence of a qualifying one-time achievement or documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The totality of the evidence did not support a finding of extraordinary ability.
Next Steps: The Petitioner may consider re-evaluating the provided evidence or gathering additional documentation to meet the required criteria if planning to re-apply.
