Date of Decision: June 29, 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 in the provided document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- None of the criteria were met based on the information in the document.
Criteria Not Met:
- Awards Criterion: The petitioner did not demonstrate receipt of a nationally or internationally recognized award. The Red Dot award cited was given to a company and not individually to the petitioner. Student awards mentioned did not meet the criteria for national or international recognition.
- Judging Criterion: The petitioner failed to show evidence of participation as a judge of the work of others in the field of electrical engineering or an allied field.
- Original Contributions Criterion: The petitioner’s documentation of various projects and developments lacked sufficient evidence to demonstrate their major significance in the field.
- Membership in Associations: The petitioner’s involvement in projects and developments did not constitute evidence of membership in an association requiring outstanding achievements.
- Scholarly Articles: The petitioner’s submitted article did not meet the criterion of being published in a professional or major trade publication.
- Leading or Critical Role: The petitioner’s evidence did not show involvement in projects that demonstrated a leading or critical role for a distinguished organization.
- High Salary: The petitioner did not provide documentation that demonstrated a high salary or significantly high remuneration relative to other electrical engineers.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner claimed various awards, including a Red Dot award and student awards. However, the Red Dot award was given to a company, and the student awards were not proven to be of national or international recognition.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence that any materials published about them met the required criteria.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner cited various technical contributions, but the documentation provided did not demonstrate that these contributions were of major significance in the field.
Participation as a Judge:
There was no evidence that the petitioner participated as a judge in any relevant capacity.
Membership in Associations:
The petitioner did not provide evidence of membership in associations that require outstanding achievements.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner submitted an article, but it did not meet the criterion for publication in a major professional or trade publication.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner discussed involvement in various projects, but the evidence did not support claims of a leading or critical role for a distinguished organization.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The petitioner provided documentation of job interviews and scholarships, but these did not demonstrate a high salary or significantly high remuneration compared to others in the field.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
- Red Dot Award Documentation: Showed the award was given to a company.
- Student Awards: Lacked evidence of national or international significance.
- Technical Contributions Documentation: Descriptions and photographs of work did not establish major significance.
- Membership Evidence: Involvement in projects did not equate to association memberships.
- Scholarly Article: A laboratory report not published in a major professional or trade publication.
- Leading Role Documentation: Did not show involvement in a leading or critical role.
- Salary Evidence: Job interviews and scholarships did not demonstrate high remuneration.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The motion to reopen was dismissed, and the underlying petition remains denied.
Reasoning:
The petitioner failed to meet the initial evidentiary requirements, including not providing evidence of a one-time achievement or meeting at least three of the ten criteria. The new evidence submitted did not change the outcome of the prior decision.
Next Steps:
The petitioner should consider gathering more substantial evidence that meets the specific criteria outlined by USCIS before reapplying.
