Date of Decision: July 9, 2024
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Electrical Engineer
Field: Electrical Engineering and Invention Development
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Motion to Reopen and Reconsider Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed the petitioner’s third motion to reopen and reconsider due to procedural and evidentiary deficiencies.
Key Issues Highlighted in the Decision:
- Published Material About the Petitioner:
- The petitioner claimed that his research on UV air purifiers appeared in a “published journal on social media” but failed to provide a copy of the publication or evidence of its recognition.
- Previous claims about patents were determined irrelevant, as they did not relate to the petitioner’s UV air purifier research.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- The petitioner asserted that he developed a UV air purifier more effective than vaccines at preventing COVID-19 spread, but failed to provide scientific corroboration or evidence of significant adoption.
- Claims about the purifier being installed in a classroom and achieving a government order were unsupported by evidence.
- Timeliness and Eligibility Issues:
- Evidence submitted on motion did not exist at the time of the initial filing in December 2020, making it inadmissible for determining eligibility as of the priority date.
- Failure to Address Prior Decisions:
- The petitioner did not provide new facts or demonstrate that the AAO’s previous decisions were based on errors of law or policy.
Key Points from the Decision
Lack of Evidence for Significant Contributions:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient documentation to support his claims about the significance or originality of his contributions to UV air purifier technology.
Procedural Noncompliance:
The petitioner’s motion did not adhere to the regulatory requirements for reopening or reconsideration, as outlined in 8 C.F.R. § 103.5.
Unsupported Claims:
The petitioner’s assertions about harassment by suppliers and alleged government orders were dismissed due to a lack of evidence.
Repeated Procedural Errors:
This was the petitioner’s third motion to reopen and reconsider. The AAO noted that the petitioner failed to address issues identified in previous decisions and reiterated unsupported claims.
Supporting Documentation
Publications and Inventions:
The petitioner did not submit verifiable evidence of publications or innovations recognized by peers or industry standards.
Scientific Claims:
Assertions about the UV air purifier lacked independent corroboration, such as peer-reviewed studies or widespread adoption data.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The motions to reopen and reconsider were dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner failed to present new facts, address prior decisions, or demonstrate eligibility under EB-1 extraordinary ability requirements. The petition remains denied.
