Date of Decision: January 30, 2018
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Civil Engineer
Field: Petroleum Industry
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Participation as a Judge: The petitioner served on jury panels to review civil engineering theses of university students, fulfilling the judging criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv).
Leading or Critical Role: The petitioner demonstrated that he served as a Director and Member of the Board for the Engineering and Construction Section, fulfilling the leading or critical role criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii).
Criteria Not Met:
Original Contributions: While the petitioner claimed that his large-scale project development and structural safety protocol designs are used worldwide, the evidence provided did not substantiate these claims to the level required for demonstrating original contributions of major significance under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v).
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner claimed to have published numerous technical reports and international reports, but the evidence did not establish that these were equivalent to scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications as required under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi).
High Salary or Remuneration: The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that his salary was significantly higher than others in the field. The submitted documents lacked proper translations and did not clearly establish the claimed remuneration compared to peers, as required under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix).
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts: The petitioner, being a civil engineer and oil executive, did not submit relevant evidence of commercial success in the performing arts, nor did he explain why this criterion should not apply to his occupation, as required under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x).
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won: The document did not indicate any awards or prizes won by the petitioner.
Published Materials About the Petitioner: There was no substantial evidence provided that could support the criterion of published materials about the petitioner in major media.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The letters and claims made about the petitioner’s contributions were not sufficiently corroborated with independent and objective evidence.
Participation as a Judge: The petitioner served on panels judging the work of others in the field, which was recognized as a met criterion.
Membership in Associations: The document did not mention any significant memberships in associations that would meet the EB1 criteria.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: Despite claims of numerous publications, the petitioner did not meet the criteria due to the lack of proper documentation and verification.
Leading or Critical Role Performed: This criterion was met as the petitioner demonstrated significant roles within reputable organizations.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases: Not applicable to this case.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration: The petitioner’s claims about high salary were not substantiated with clear and comparable evidence.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts: Not applicable to this case.
Supporting Documentation
The petitioner submitted various documents including letters of recommendation, technical reports, and salary records. However, many documents were not translated or did not provide sufficient evidence to support the petitioner’s claims under the required criteria.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal dismissed
Reasoning: The petitioner did not meet the required three criteria out of ten for EB1 Extraordinary Ability classification. The evidence provided was insufficient or not appropriately documented to demonstrate the petitioner’s eligibility.
Next Steps: The petitioner should consider gathering more substantial and properly documented evidence to meet the required criteria if intending to reapply. Consulting with an immigration attorney to ensure all documentation is correctly prepared and translated is recommended.
