Date of Decision: April 30, 2019
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Civil Engineer
Field: Sciences
Nationality: Egyptian
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Published material about the petitioner: Met due to an article discussing the petitioner’s research on environmental waste as a shield against radiation.
Criteria Not Met:
- Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards: The petitioner’s youth and student awards were deemed not to satisfy the requirements.
- Membership in associations: The evidence provided did not demonstrate that membership required outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts.
- Original contributions of major significance: The evidence provided did not establish that the petitioner’s contributions were of major significance in the field.
- Authorship of scholarly articles: Although the petitioner published a paper, it did not meet the criteria fully.
- Leading or critical role: The evidence did not show that the petitioner’s roles were leading or critical for any organizations with a distinguished reputation.
- High salary or remuneration: The petitioner did not demonstrate commanding a high salary compared to peers in the field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
- The petitioner’s early career awards were considered but did not meet the criterion for recognition in the professional field.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
- One article qualified under this criterion, discussing significant research by the petitioner.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- Contributions cited by the petitioner lacked sufficient evidence of impact in the field.
Participation as a Judge:
- Not applicable.
Membership in Associations:
- Membership details provided did not meet the necessary criteria of outstanding achievements.
Authorship of scholarly articles:
- The petitioner published a paper, but the overall contribution was not deemed significant enough.
Leading or critical role performed:
- Provided roles did not demonstrate a critical impact on the organizations involved.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
- Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
- There was no sufficient evidence to prove high salary or significant remuneration.
Supporting Documentation
- Evidence included various certificates, membership details, articles, and letters from various individuals and organizations, none of which sufficiently met the criteria needed for approval.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The petitioner did not meet the necessary criteria to qualify for an EB-1 extraordinary ability visa. The initial evidence was insufficient and the appeal did not remedy these deficiencies.
Reasoning: The appeal lacked substantial evidence across the required criteria and did not demonstrate that the petitioner stood out in his field as required by the regulations.
Next Steps: The petitioner may consider gathering more substantial evidence and reapplying or seeking alternative visa categories.
