Date of Decision: June 8, 2021
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Engineer and Data Scientist
Field: Engineering Services
Nationality: [Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Participation as a Judge: The petitioner served as a judge for the work of others in his field, meeting the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv).
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner co-authored 15 journal articles and conference presentations, satisfying the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi).
Criteria Not Met:
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The petitioner’s contributions were recognized in the field, but the provided evidence did not establish that these contributions were of major significance.
Leading or Critical Role: The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that he played a leading or critical role in distinguished organizations.
Key Points from the Decision
Participation as a Judge
The petitioner served as a peer reviewer for scientific journals, meeting the criterion related to judging the work of others.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles
The petitioner co-authored numerous scholarly articles in the field of engineering services, meeting the criterion for published materials.
Original Contributions of Major Significance
The petitioner provided letters and citations acknowledging his contributions. However, the letters contained passages copied from the petitioner’s own work and did not independently explain the significance of these contributions. The citation data lacked comparative analysis to establish the significance of the petitioner’s work in the field.
Leading or Critical Role Performed
The petitioner claimed to have performed critical roles at various organizations, but the evidence provided did not demonstrate the distinguished reputation of these organizations or clarify the petitioner’s role within them.
Supporting Documentation
Judging: Evidence of the petitioner’s participation as a peer reviewer for scientific journals.
Scholarly Articles: Copies of articles co-authored by the petitioner.
Original Contributions: Letters from colleagues, citation data, and descriptions of the petitioner’s work.
Leading Role: Organizational charts, letters of recommendation, and descriptions of roles and responsibilities.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to meet at least three of the ten criteria required for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability.
While the petitioner demonstrated success and recognition in his field, he did not establish the sustained national or international acclaim necessary for the EB1 classification.
Next Steps:
Consider gathering more substantial and relevant evidence to support the criteria not met.
Seek further guidance or legal advice on potential reapplication or other visa classifications that may be more appropriate for the petitioner’s qualifications and achievements.
