Date of Decision: August 9, 2021
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Electrical Engineer
Field: Electrical Engineering
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
No specific criteria were acknowledged as met in the document.
Criteria Not Met:
Erroneous Conclusions or Statements of Fact: The petitioner did not specifically identify any erroneous conclusions of law or statements of fact in the unfavorable decision notice.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The document does not mention any awards or prizes won by the petitioner.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The document does not mention any published materials about the petitioner.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The document does not mention any original contributions of major significance by the petitioner.
Participation as a Judge:
The document does not mention any participation as a judge by the petitioner.
Membership in Associations:
The document does not mention any memberships in associations by the petitioner.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The document does not mention any authorship of scholarly articles by the petitioner.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The document does not mention any leading or critical roles performed by the petitioner.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
The document does not mention any artistic exhibitions or showcases by the petitioner.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The document does not mention any evidence of high salary or remuneration for the petitioner.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
The document does not mention any commercial successes in the performing arts for the petitioner.
Supporting Documentation
The appeal includes an affidavit from the petitioner describing the procedural history from 2016 to 2020 and issues related to the Form I-485 application. However, this affidavit did not include a substantive response to the five specific grounds for revocation.
Conclusion
Final Determination:
The appeal was summarily dismissed.
Reasoning:
The appeal did not specifically identify any erroneous conclusions of law or statements of fact in the unfavorable decision notice. Assertions about the procedural history preceding the issuance of the notice cannot suffice as grounds for a substantive appeal.
Next Steps:
The petitioner may need to gather and present substantive responses to the specific grounds for revocation if considering further motions or appeals. Ensuring that the appeal addresses the specific legal or factual errors cited in the decision notice is crucial for any future attempts.
