Date of Decision: November 24, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Engineer and Researcher
Field: Engineering and Research
Nationality: [Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
None specified in the document.
Criteria Not Met:
Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards: The Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence of nationally or internationally recognized awards for excellence in the field, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i).
Published Material: The Petitioner provided minimal documentation, including an unpublished letter to the editor and patent applications, which did not qualify as published material in major media, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii).
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that his contributions were of major significance in the field, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). The evidence provided included his own opinions and patent applications that had not been granted.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The Petitioner did not establish that his publications were scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). The documentation included an unpublished letter to the editor and a self-published book without evidence of its impact on the field.
Leading or Critical Role: The Petitioner did not demonstrate that he performed in a leading or critical role for organizations with a distinguished reputation, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii).
High Salary or Remuneration: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of a high salary compared to others in his field, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix).
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The evidence did not demonstrate the Petitioner received nationally or internationally recognized awards.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The Petitioner provided minimal documentation, including an unpublished letter to the editor and patent applications that had not been granted, which did not qualify as published material in major media.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner’s contributions, while significant to him, did not demonstrate major significance in the field. The evidence included his own opinions and unapproved patent applications.
Participation as a Judge:
Not applicable.
Membership in Associations:
Not applicable.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Petitioner did not establish that his publications were scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The Petitioner’s roles were not sufficiently documented to demonstrate leading or critical roles in distinguished organizations.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of a high salary compared to others in his field.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
The Petitioner provided minimal supporting documents, including an unpublished letter to the editor, patent applications, and a self-published book. These did not collectively establish the required criteria for extraordinary ability.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not demonstrate that he met at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. The evidence provided did not establish his awards as nationally or internationally recognized, his published material as major media, or his contributions as of major significance. The Petitioner did not show that his roles were leading or critical in distinguished organizations, nor did he provide evidence of a high salary.
Next Steps: The Petitioner may consider submitting additional evidence that clearly establishes the major significance of their contributions or explore other immigration options that may better fit their qualifications.
