Date of Decision: June 30, 2023
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Civil Engineer
Field: Construction Engineering
Nationality: Pakistani
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Leading or Critical Role: The petitioner demonstrated his performance in a leading or critical role for an organization or establishment with a distinguished reputation. He served as a team leader for advanced and specialized construction systems from 2007 to 2018 and as a commercial manager for concrete admixture systems and cement solutions since 2018 at [Company Name].
Criteria Not Met:
- Published Material: The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of published material about him in professional or major trade publications or other major media relating to his work. The articles provided did not mention him or his contributions specifically.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance: The evidence submitted, including letters from colleagues and business associates, did not establish that the petitioner’s contributions were of major significance in the field of civil engineering.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner did not claim eligibility under the criterion related to lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The petitioner submitted articles from a January 2016 issue of a publication, which did not mention him or his work. He also referred to a profile published by his employer but failed to provide details such as the date, author, and publication.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The letters provided praised the petitioner’s technical skills and professional competence but did not describe specific original contributions that had a significant impact on the field of civil engineering. The petitioner’s involvement in major projects, including the construction of [Notable Project], was noted, but the broader impact on the field was not demonstrated.
Participation as a Judge:
Not claimed or evidenced.
Membership in Associations:
Not claimed or evidenced.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Not claimed or evidenced.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner served in significant roles within his organization, which was acknowledged as having a distinguished reputation.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not claimed or evidenced.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
- Letters from Colleagues and Associates: Provided general praise but lacked specificity regarding original contributions.
- Articles from January 2016 Issue of Publication: Did not mention the petitioner or his work directly.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner did not meet the initial evidence requirements for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability by failing to demonstrate eligibility under at least three of the ten criteria.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to satisfy the criteria for published material about him or original contributions of major significance. While his professional roles were significant, they did not demonstrate the broader impact required for the extraordinary ability classification.
Next Steps:
The petitioner may consider gathering more specific and detailed evidence of his contributions and their impact on the field, as well as evidence of published material about his work in professional publications or major media.
