Date of Decision: December 12, 2023
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
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
None
Criteria Not Met:
- Awards Criterion: The Petitioner did not demonstrate eligibility for the awards criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i).
- Judging Criterion: The Petitioner did not meet the judging criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv).
- Original Contributions Criterion: The Petitioner did not satisfy the original contributions criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v).
- Membership Criterion: The Petitioner’s new claims and evidence for the membership criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) were not considered.
- Scholarly Articles Criterion: The new claims and evidence for the scholarly articles criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) were not reviewed.
- Leading or Critical Role Criterion: The new claims and evidence for the leading or critical role criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) were not considered.
- High Salary Criterion: The new claims and evidence for the high salary criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) were not reviewed.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The Petitioner failed to demonstrate eligibility under the awards criterion, which requires evidence of receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or at least three of the specified categories of evidence.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Not applicable as this criterion was not claimed or supported with evidence in the initial petition.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to meet the criterion for original contributions of major significance in their field.
Participation as a Judge:
The evidence provided did not satisfy the judging criterion, as the Petitioner did not demonstrate having served as a judge of the work of others in the field.
Membership in Associations:
New claims and evidence for membership in associations were not considered due to their absence in the initial petition.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Petitioner’s new claims regarding the authorship of scholarly articles were not reviewed.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The leading or critical role criterion was not met, and new claims and evidence were not considered.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable to this case.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The high salary criterion was not met, and new claims and evidence were not considered.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable to this case.
Supporting Documentation
- Education and Language Fluency: The Petitioner highlighted their educational background and language fluency, claiming “international influence.”
- UVC Sterilization Implementation: The Petitioner described their history with UVC sterilization implementation and future work potential.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. The petition remains denied.
Reasoning:
The Petitioner did not demonstrate that the previous decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy. The motion did not satisfy the requirements for a motion to reconsider under 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3).
Next Steps:
The Petitioner should consider re-evaluating the evidence and possibly submitting a new petition with comprehensive documentation meeting the specific evidentiary criteria.
