Date of Decision: February 27, 2018
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:
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner met the judging criterion by serving as a reviewer for a reputable journal, showcasing his recognition in the field.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner fulfilled the criterion for authorship by publishing scholarly articles in recognized journals.
Criteria Not Met:
Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards:
The petitioner provided evidence of receiving a scholarship and an email recognizing his participation as a reviewer. However, these were deemed insufficient as they did not demonstrate national or international recognition for excellence in the field.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The petitioner submitted an article about his software tool published in a magazine. However, the provided evidence was not sufficient to classify the magazine as a major trade publication or other major media.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Letters from colleagues praised the petitioner’s work, but there was no concrete evidence demonstrating that his contributions had significantly impacted the field.
Leading or Critical Role:
While letters from employers stated the petitioner’s role was critical, there was no corroborative evidence of the economic impact or the distinguished reputation of the organizations.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner claimed an $8,000 scholarship as evidence. However, this was determined not to be a nationally or internationally recognized prize for excellence.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
An article about the petitioner’s software tool was presented, but the evidence was not sufficient to demonstrate that the publication was in a major trade publication.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Letters from colleagues and academic mentors praised the petitioner’s research and models. However, there was no evidence of widespread adoption or significant changes in the field resulting from his work.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner served as a reviewer for a journal, meeting the criterion for judging the work of others in the field.
Membership in Associations:
Not applicable or not sufficiently documented in the appeal.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner published scholarly articles that were recognized by his peers, fulfilling this criterion.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Letters from employers stated the petitioner played a critical role, but lacked specific evidence to substantiate these claims.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable or not sufficiently documented in the appeal.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not applicable or not sufficiently documented in the appeal.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable or not sufficiently documented in the appeal.
Supporting Documentation
The petitioner provided several letters from colleagues, employers, and academic mentors praising his work and contributions. However, the documentation did not sufficiently meet the requirements for three of the criteria needed for EB1 classification.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal dismissed
Reasoning: The petitioner did not meet the initial evidence requirement of at least three of the ten criteria. The documentation provided, while demonstrating notable achievements, did not establish the petitioner’s eligibility for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability under the EB1 category.
Next Steps:
The petitioner may consider gathering additional substantial evidence of recognition and impact in his field and potentially reapplying or seeking advice from an immigration attorney to explore other visa options or strategies for reapplication.
