Date of Decision: April 5, 2021
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Engineer
Field: Automotive Engineering
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Judging the Work of Others: The beneficiary has judged journal and conference papers.
Scholarly Articles: The beneficiary has authored several scholarly articles.
Criteria Not Met:
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The contributions were not demonstrated to be of major significance in the field.
Performing in a Leading or Critical Role: The beneficiary’s roles were described but not sufficiently detailed to show significant contributions to the organization’s outcomes.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Not applicable.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The decision does not mention specific published materials about the petitioner.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner claimed the beneficiary made significant contributions, including patents and research, but the evidence did not demonstrate these contributions had a widespread impact on the field. Citations were found insufficient to prove major significance.
Participation as a Judge:
The beneficiary judged some journal and conference papers, but this alone did not meet the criteria for extraordinary ability.
Membership in Associations:
Not specifically addressed in the decision.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The beneficiary authored several scholarly articles, but this was only one of the criteria met and did not alone prove extraordinary ability.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The roles described by the petitioner lacked detailed evidence of significant impact on the organization’s success or activities.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not addressed in the decision.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
Recommendation Letters: Provided but lacked detailed explanations of the significance of the beneficiary’s contributions.
Patents: Mentioned but not sufficiently proven to be of major significance.
Google Scholar Citations: Found insufficient to demonstrate major contributions.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal dismissed; the beneficiary did not meet the required criteria for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability.
Reasoning:
The beneficiary’s evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or recognition of major contributions in the field. The roles and contributions described lacked detailed evidence of significant impact or critical importance.
Next Steps:
For future petitions, it is recommended to provide more detailed evidence of the beneficiary’s significant contributions and their impact on the field, along with corroborating documentation from independent and authoritative sources.
