Date of Decision: February 19, 2019
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Testing and Commissioning Engineer
Field: Engineering
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner provided letters attesting to his contributions, but they lacked specifics and were deemed insufficient to demonstrate major significance in the field. - Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner claimed to have judged in a related field, but inconsistencies in the record and lack of credible evidence did not satisfy this criterion.
Criteria Not Met:
- Awards and Prizes:
The certificates provided by the petitioner were not nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field of engineering. - Membership in Associations:
The membership claimed was based on automatic inclusion rather than outstanding achievements judged by experts. - Leading or Critical Role:
Although the petitioner held significant positions, the evidence did not demonstrate that his roles were leading or critical to the organizations’ success or distinguished reputation. - High Salary or Remuneration:
The petitioner’s salary, while higher than average, was not sufficiently high compared to others in the field to meet the criterion.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner submitted various certificates from employers, but they were not recognized as prestigious awards in the field of engineering.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
No significant published materials were provided that recognized the petitioner’s contributions to the field.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The letters provided did not convincingly demonstrate that the petitioner’s contributions were of major significance to the field of engineering.
Participation as a Judge:
There was a conflict between the petitioner’s certificate and a letter regarding his role as a judge, leading to the conclusion that he did not meet this criterion.
Membership in Associations:
Membership was granted based on automatic inclusion, not outstanding achievements judged by experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
No evidence was provided regarding authorship of scholarly articles.
Leading or Critical Role:
The roles held by the petitioner were not substantiated as leading or critical to the success or reputation of the organizations.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The petitioner did not demonstrate that his salary was significantly higher compared to others in the same field.
Supporting Documentation
- Certificates of Recognition:
Various certificates from previous employers recognizing contributions but not meeting the required standards. - Letters of Recommendation:
Letters from colleagues and supervisors highlighting the petitioner’s abilities but lacking specific evidence of significant contributions. - Salary Comparisons:
Comparative wage data showing the petitioner’s salary was above average but not significantly high relative to others in the field.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not satisfy at least three of the required criteria for extraordinary ability. The evidence provided lacked the necessary quality and specificity to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.
Next Steps:
It is recommended that the petitioner gather more substantial and specific evidence if they choose to reapply or seek other visa classifications that may better suit their qualifications.
