Date of Decision: February 5, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Civil Engineer
Field: Engineering
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met
Published Material in Major Media: The Petitioner’s work was referenced in professional or major trade publications.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The Petitioner authored scholarly articles in professional journals.
Criteria Not Met
Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards: The Petitioner provided certificates from national tournaments and a letter from a Saudi prince. However, the awards were in creative writing, not related to civil engineering, and the letter was a courteous acknowledgment rather than a recognized award.
Membership in Associations: The Petitioner claimed membership in the Egyptian Engineering Syndicate (EES), but did not provide evidence that membership required outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Petitioner did not demonstrate that his contributions had a significant impact on the field. The citation of his work in a graduate thesis did not indicate major significance.
Leading or Critical Role for Distinguished Organizations: The Petitioner provided letters of appreciation, but did not show these were from distinguished organizations or that his roles were leading or critical.
High Salary or Remuneration: The Petitioner argued that a letter from a Saudi prince should be considered remuneration. However, this did not meet the regulatory definition of high salary or remuneration.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner’s awards in creative writing were not related to civil engineering. The letter from a Saudi prince was a courteous acknowledgment and not a recognized award.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner provided references in professional publications.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate major significance in his field. Citations in graduate theses do not indicate major significance.
Participation as a Judge:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Membership in Associations:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not demonstrate that the membership in EES required outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner authored scholarly articles in professional journals.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to show that his roles were leading or critical for distinguished organizations.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner’s claim that a letter from a Saudi prince was remuneration did not meet the regulatory definition of high salary or remuneration.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Supporting Documentation
Award Materials: Provided but did not establish national or international recognition.
Articles and Publications: Provided references in professional publications.
Letters from Colleagues and Organizations: Praised the Petitioner’s work but did not demonstrate major significance or critical roles.
Salary Documentation: Claimed letter from a Saudi prince as remuneration, which did not meet the regulatory definition.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner met two of the criteria but did not provide sufficient evidence to meet at least three of the ten criteria. The Petitioner did not provide the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria. The record does not support a finding of the required acclaim and recognition for the classification sought.
Next Steps: The Petitioner must provide more substantial and specific evidence to meet the criteria for extraordinary ability classification.
