Date of Decision: OCT. 21, 2019
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Director of Research and Development
Field: Electrical Engineering
Nationality: [Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Participation as a Judge:
The beneficiary served as a peer reviewer of manuscripts for several IEEE journals and conferences.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The beneficiary authored scholarly articles published by the American Control Conference, North American Power Symposium, and Conference on Computational Intelligence and Multimedia Applications.
Criteria Not Met:
Membership in Associations:
The petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary’s membership in the IEEE, or his roles at the School of Mines and Technology, required outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
While the petitioner provided evidence of the beneficiary’s patents, products, and contributions, the documentation did not sufficiently demonstrate that these contributions were of major significance in the field.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish its own distinguished reputation in the field, despite demonstrating the beneficiary’s critical role within the organization.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
- No major, internationally recognized award was presented as evidence.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
- Multiple letters and references highlighted the beneficiary’s research and development work, but failed to show its significant impact on the field beyond the petitioner’s organization.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- The petitioner’s claims regarding the beneficiary’s research and inventions were not substantiated with evidence showing wide implementation or major influence in the field.
Participation as a Judge:
- The beneficiary’s role as a peer reviewer for IEEE journals and conferences was recognized.
Membership in Associations:
- The petitioner failed to prove that the beneficiary’s membership in IEEE or other roles required outstanding achievements judged by experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
- The beneficiary’s scholarly articles met this criterion.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
- Evidence of the beneficiary’s critical role was provided, but the petitioner’s distinguished reputation was not sufficiently established.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
- Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
- Not applicable.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
- Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
- Letters from industry experts, colleagues, and customers.
- Evidence of patents and products developed by the beneficiary.
- Citation data for the beneficiary’s published articles.
- Marketing reports and product evaluations.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal Dismissed
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to meet the required criteria for the EB1 classification. Specifically, the evidence failed to demonstrate the beneficiary’s original contributions of major significance and the distinguished reputation of the petitioner’s organization.
Next Steps:
The petitioner may consider gathering more substantial evidence of the beneficiary’s contributions and the organization’s distinguished reputation before reapplying.
