Date of Decision: January 19, 2018
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Engineer
Field: Sciences, specifically in power system control algorithms
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Judging the work of others: The petitioner demonstrated participation as a judge of the work of others by serving as a reviewer of manuscripts for professional publications. This criterion was accepted as met.
Authorship of scholarly articles: The petitioner authored articles that were published in conferences and professional journals, meeting this criterion.
Criteria Not Met:
Original contributions of major significance: The petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that his contributions were of major significance in the field. Although he provided evidence of citations and recommendation letters, the impact of his work was not proven to be of major significance according to the required standards.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Not applicable.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Not applicable.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner contended that his scholarly articles and their citations demonstrated major significance. However, it was concluded that while the publications were in leading journals, the petitioner did not sufficiently establish the major significance of his contributions. The recommendation letters, though supportive, did not provide specific examples of the petitioner’s work having significant impact in the field.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner served as a reviewer for various professional journals, which was accepted as fulfilling this criterion.
Membership in Associations:
Not applicable.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner authored articles that were published in conferences and professional journals, satisfying this criterion.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Not applicable.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not applicable.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
Evidence of judging manuscripts for professional journals
Copies of scholarly articles authored by the petitioner
Citation records and recommendation letters
Conclusion
Final Determination:
The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not meet the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or documentation that met at least three of the ten criteria. The petitioner’s accomplishments, while notable, did not rise to the level of “extraordinary ability” as defined by the standards of sustained national or international acclaim.
Next Steps:
The petitioner may consider gathering additional evidence to demonstrate the major significance of his contributions, or explore other immigration classifications that may be more suitable for his qualifications.
