Date of Decision: FEB. 19, 2019
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Electrical Engineer
Field: Electrical Engineering
Nationality:
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Judging of Others: The petitioner served as a peer reviewer of manuscripts for journals.
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner authored scholarly articles in professional publications.
Criteria Not Met:
- Original Contributions of Major Significance: The petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that his contributions were of major significance in the field of electrical engineering. The evidence provided, including citations and book chapters, did not show the required level of influence and impact on the field.
- Other Criteria: The petitioner did not meet other criteria such as awards, published material in certain media, or performance in a leading or critical role.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Not applicable.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Not applicable.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- The petitioner’s work, though cited by others, was not shown to have a significant impact on the field.
- Letters from peers and the number of citations were not sufficient to establish the major significance of the petitioner’s contributions.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner served as a peer reviewer, which was acknowledged as meeting the criterion.
Membership in Associations:
Not applicable.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
- The petitioner authored several scholarly articles, meeting this criterion.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Not applicable.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not applicable.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
- Peer Review Evidence: Documentation of the petitioner’s role as a peer reviewer for several journals.
- Scholarly Articles: Copies of the petitioner’s published articles in professional journals.
- Citation Records: Data from Google Scholar and other sources showing the number of citations of the petitioner’s work.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed, and the petition was denied.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not meet the required criteria to establish extraordinary ability. Specifically, the petitioner’s contributions were not demonstrated to be of major significance to the field.
Next Steps: The petitioner may consider gathering more substantial evidence of their contributions and impact on the field or explore other visa options.
