Date of Decision: March 5, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Construction Manager
Field: Construction and Engineering
Nationality: China
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Criterion 1: Published Material About the Petitioner
The petitioner provided evidence of an article about his work that appeared in The China Press. The article included the title, date, and author, meeting the criteria for published material about his work in major media.
Criteria Not Met:
Criterion 1: Receipt of Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards
The petitioner submitted certificates indicating that his company received a “National High-Quality Construction” prize for three projects. However, the awards were granted to the company and not to the petitioner personally. Additionally, there were inconsistencies in the evidence regarding the petitioner’s role in these projects.
Criterion 2: Original Contributions of Major Significance
The petitioner claimed to have led the implementation of external wall insulation methods incorporated into government regulations. However, the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate the petitioner’s direct and substantial contributions or the originality of his work. The reference letters provided were not supported by corroborative documentary evidence, reducing their persuasive value.
Criterion 3: Leading or Critical Role for Distinguished Organizations
The petitioner served as Vice President (Engineering) for a company in China and co-founded a real estate investment company. However, the evidence did not establish the distinguished reputation of these organizations or the significance of the petitioner’s roles. There were inconsistencies and a lack of specificity in the reference letters provided.
Criterion 4: High Salary or Remuneration
The petitioner provided evidence of his salary and bonuses. However, comparative salary data showed that his compensation was not significantly high compared to others in similar positions within the same geographic area. The evidence did not establish that the petitioner’s salary was high or significantly high relative to others in his field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner did not demonstrate receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of construction.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The petitioner met this criterion by providing an article about his work published in The China Press.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner’s claimed contributions to construction methods were not sufficiently supported by evidence to demonstrate major significance in the field.
Participation as a Judge:
Not applicable in this case.
Membership in Associations:
The petitioner did not provide evidence of membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Not applicable in this case.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner’s roles in various companies were not sufficiently supported by evidence to demonstrate leading or critical contributions to organizations with distinguished reputations.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable in this case.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate a high salary relative to others in his field.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable in this case.
Supporting Documentation
Articles and Publications: Various articles and publications about the petitioner’s work.
Letters of Reference: Letters from colleagues and associates detailing the petitioner’s contributions and roles.
Award Documentation: Certificates and photographs of awards received by the petitioner’s company.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to meet at least three of the required criteria for demonstrating extraordinary ability. While the petitioner met the criterion for published material about his work, he did not provide sufficient evidence to establish the major significance of his contributions, receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes, leading or critical roles for distinguished organizations, or a high salary relative to others in his field. The petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field.
Next Steps:
The petitioner may consider gathering more substantial evidence of extraordinary ability, focusing on contributions with demonstrated major significance, awards with national or international recognition, and other achievements that demonstrate standing at the top of the field. Exploring other immigration options that may be more suitable given the evidence available is also recommended.
