Date of Decision: FEB. 24, 2016
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Engineer
Field: Metallurgical and Material Engineering
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Participation as a Judge: The petitioner has been recognized for his participation as a judge of the work of others in his field, contributing his expertise to evaluate the work of his peers.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner has authored several scholarly articles published in reputable journals, which demonstrates his involvement and recognition in the academic community.
Criteria Not Met:
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The petitioner was unable to prove that his contributions had a major impact on the field of metallurgical and material engineering. Despite various supportive letters, the evidences like citations and practical applications were deemed insufficient to establish the significant impact required.
Leading or Critical Role: Evidence provided did not conclusively show that the petitioner’s roles in his engagements were either leading or critical within organizations with distinguished reputations. His positions and the impacts of his work within these organizations were not considered significant enough to meet the criteria.
Key Points from the Decision
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner has served as a judge reviewing scholarly manuscripts, which reflects his respect and standing within the academic community.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner has contributed articles to well-known journals, indicating recognition by the broader scientific community, although the impact of these publications was questioned due to limited citations.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The appeal provided several reference letters from colleagues and supervisors highlighting the petitioner’s innovative research and its potential applications. However, these were not sufficient to demonstrate a significant impact on the field as required by the criteria.
Leading or Critical Role:
The roles described in the petitioner’s employment did not clearly demonstrate a leading or critical impact within the organizations mentioned, which included a stint as a research and development assistant.
Supporting Documentation
The petitioner submitted a range of documents including:
- Reference letters from various professionals acknowledging the petitioner’s contributions and roles.
- Copies of published scholarly articles.
- Evidence of participation in judging the work of peers in the field.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed. The petitioner did not meet the required number of criteria to qualify for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. The provided documentation failed to adequately demonstrate that the petitioner’s contributions were of major significance to the field or that he held critical or leading roles in distinguished organizations.
Reasoning: The decision highlighted a lack of substantial impact and significant leadership or critical roles in the petitioner’s professional engagements.
Next Steps: It is recommended that the petitioner gather more substantial evidence demonstrating significant impacts and leadership roles in future applications.
