Date of Decision: APR. 26, 2017
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Computer Engineering Researcher
Field: Electrical and Computer Engineering
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The petitioner’s letter from an associate professor mentioned contributions in polymorphic embedded systems and meta-execution frameworks. However, it lacked evidence of major significance in the field, resulting in the criterion being unmet upon review.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner authored articles published in professional journals, meeting the criterion of authorship of scholarly articles.
Criteria Not Met:
Original Contributions of Major Significance: While the petitioner’s research was original, it lacked demonstrated major significance and impact within the field, failing to meet this criterion.
Display of Work at Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases: The petitioner’s presentations at scientific conferences did not qualify as displays at artistic exhibitions or showcases.
Leading or Critical Role: The petitioner did not demonstrate playing a critical role within his organization, as his involvement in research grant proposals was not sufficient to establish this.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
No significant awards or prizes were mentioned as evidence in the decision.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The decision did not indicate any substantial published materials specifically about the petitioner that met the required criteria.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner’s contributions were not shown to have major significance in the field, with insufficient evidence of implementation and impact.
Participation as a Judge:
Not applicable in this case.
Membership in Associations:
No evidence of membership in associations that contributed to the decision.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner’s scholarly articles were acknowledged, meeting one of the criteria.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner did not establish a leading or critical role within his organization, as required.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
The petitioner’s presentations did not meet the criteria for artistic exhibitions or showcases.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not applicable in this case.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable in this case.
Supporting Documentation
- Associate Professor’s Letter: Provided but lacked evidence of major significance.
- Research Papers: Included but insufficient in citations and impact.
- Grant Proposals and White Paper: Submitted but did not demonstrate implementation.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not meet the required three evidentiary criteria, and the totality of the evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or extraordinary ability in the field.
Next Steps: The petitioner may consider gathering additional evidence of significant contributions and impact in their field before reapplying.
