Date of Decision: August 22, 2016
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Computational Fluid Dynamics Scientist
Field: Fluid Dynamics
Nationality: (Not Specified)
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner has authored seven scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications, including articles published in recognized journals such as [journal names not provided].
Leading or Critical Role:
The petitioner has performed in a leading or critical role as a research and development engineer for an organization that has a distinguished reputation.
Criteria Not Met:
Membership in Associations:
The petitioner did not establish that membership in the provided associations requires outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by recognized national or international experts.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner’s contributions, including research in CFD modeling and citation history, did not rise to the level of major significance in the field. Letters of recommendation praised the petitioner’s work but lacked specific examples of significant impact.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Not applicable.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Not applicable.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner’s research contributions and citations were not sufficient to establish major significance. Letters of support failed to demonstrate significant impact on the field.
Participation as a Judge:
Not applicable.
Membership in Associations:
Memberships provided did not meet the regulatory requirements for outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Authorship of seven scholarly articles was recognized as meeting the criterion.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner’s role as a research and development engineer was acknowledged as leading or critical for a distinguished organization.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not applicable.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
- Scholarly Articles:
Seven articles in professional journals demonstrating original research. - Letters of Recommendation:
Multiple letters from peers and professionals praising the petitioner’s work but lacking specific examples of significant impact. - Employment Records:
Documentation of leading or critical role in the organization.
Conclusion
Final Determination:
The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not meet the minimum requirement of satisfying at least three of the ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Despite fulfilling two criteria, the overall evidence did not demonstrate that the petitioner has risen to the very top of their field or achieved sustained national or international acclaim.
Next Steps:
The petitioner may consider gathering additional evidence to meet the criteria or seek alternative immigration pathways.
