Date of Decision: April 21, 2021
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Civil Engineer
Field: Civil Engineering
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Participation as a Judge: The petitioner served as a judge for the work of others, including reviewing articles and supervising graduate students. This criterion was accepted as met.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner authored several scholarly articles, which was recognized as meeting the criterion.
Criteria Not Met:
Leading or Critical Role: The petitioner claimed to have played leading and critical roles at various institutions. However, the evidence did not establish the distinguished reputation of these institutions or demonstrate that the petitioner held high-ranking or impactful roles.
Membership in Associations: The petitioner provided evidence of memberships in several engineering societies. However, some of these were registration boards rather than associations, and the memberships did not meet the requirements of outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The petitioner claimed original contributions, including research and recommendations for the transportation industry. The evidence provided was not sufficient to establish the significance or widespread impact of these contributions.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner initially claimed a one-time achievement in the form of a plaque, which was not recognized as a major, internationally recognized award.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The petitioner did not provide substantial evidence of significant published materials about his work in professional or major media.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner’s contributions, such as predictive models for infrastructure maintenance, were acknowledged but not sufficiently demonstrated to be of major significance in the field.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner’s role in judging academic work and reviewing articles was accepted as meeting the criterion.
Membership in Associations:
Memberships in engineering societies were not established as requiring outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner authored scholarly articles, but the citation impact was minimal and did not demonstrate significant influence in the field.
Supporting Documentation
Plaque Documentation:
Evidence of a plaque recognizing contributions to organizing a conference, which was not deemed a major award.
Judging Roles Documentation:
Details of judging roles, including reviewing articles and supervising graduate students.
Published Articles:
List of articles authored by the petitioner, with minimal citation impact.
Association Memberships:
Documentation of memberships in engineering societies, with insufficient evidence of outstanding achievement requirements.
Original Contributions:
Letters and statements about the petitioner’s research contributions, lacking first-hand evidence of impact.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not provide new facts or documentary evidence to support reopening the case.
The arguments presented did not demonstrate an error in the application of law or USCIS policy.
The petitioner’s accomplishments, while significant, did not meet the highly restrictive criteria for extraordinary ability classification.
Next Steps:
The petitioner may consider gathering more substantial evidence of national or international acclaim and reassessing the criteria for extraordinary ability before any future filings.
