Date of Decision: December 9, 2015
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Engineer
Field: Electrical Engineering
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Participation as a Judge:
The Petitioner provided evidence of evaluating dissertations as a post-doctoral researcher and rating contract bids as an engineer. This criterion is met by the plain language requirements.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Petitioner co-authored an article published in a notable journal and presented at a conference, meeting the plain language requirements.
Leading or Critical Role:
The Petitioner demonstrated a leading role as a senior engineer in a reputable electric company, contributing to significant projects and cost savings.
Criteria Not Met:
Awards and Prizes Won:
The Petitioner’s certificates of employment recognition are not considered nationally or internationally recognized awards indicative of extraordinary ability.
Membership in Associations:
Memberships in various engineering organizations were based on education and experience, not on extraordinary ability, and did not demonstrate national or international acclaim.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner’s patent and citations primarily involved co-authors and did not show significant impact in the field.
Evidence of High Salary:
The Petitioner’s salary, while slightly above the median, did not substantiate a claim of extraordinary ability.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The awards cited were internal recognitions and did not meet the criterion for nationally or internationally recognized awards for excellence.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The citations of the Petitioner’s scholarly articles were primarily from co-authors, indicating limited recognition beyond the immediate circle.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The references did not provide substantial reasoning behind the Petitioner’s impact, and the citation record did not reflect significant contributions.
Participation as a Judge:
The Petitioner judged theses and contract bids but did not demonstrate that this role reflected judging by those at the top of the field.
Membership in Associations:
Memberships were based on qualifications and did not indicate national or international acclaim.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Petitioner authored articles, but the citations were largely from co-authors, indicating limited broader impact.
Leading or Critical Role:
The Petitioner played a critical role in projects but did not demonstrate national acclaim or recognition beyond the employer.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The salary was slightly above median and did not support the claim of extraordinary ability.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
- Evaluations of Dissertations: Evidence provided for judging work.
- Published Articles: Documentation of co-authored article and conference presentation.
- Employment Certificates: Recognition from the employer.
- Membership Print-outs: Requirements for memberships in various organizations.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The evidence did not establish that the Petitioner is among the small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field or that he has achieved sustained national or international acclaim.
Next Steps: The Petitioner must provide more substantial evidence of extraordinary ability and national or international acclaim for future appeals.
