Date of Decision: July 5, 2018
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Engineer
Field: Sciences
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
No criteria were met according to the USCIS evaluation.
Criteria Not Met:
Lesser Prizes or Awards: The petitioner’s award from a competition in Nigeria did not fulfill the criterion of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field.
Published Materials About the Petitioner: The petitioner provided evidence of interviews and articles about his robotics invention, but did not provide sufficient supporting evidence, such as independent rating or circulation statistics, to demonstrate that these were major trade publications or other major media.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The petitioner submitted recommendation letters and other documents, but did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that his contributions were of major significance in the field.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases: The petitioner’s participation in a scientific competition did not qualify as an artistic exhibition or showcase.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won: The petitioner provided evidence of an award from a competition in Nigeria, but it was not recognized as a major, internationally recognized award.
Published Materials About the Petitioner: The petitioner submitted evidence of interviews and articles, but did not provide supporting evidence to establish these as major media publications.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The petitioner’s submissions did not demonstrate that his contributions were of major significance in the field.
Participation as a Judge: Not applicable based on the provided evidence.
Membership in Associations: No evidence was provided to demonstrate membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: Not applicable based on the provided evidence.
Leading or Critical Role Performed: The petitioner did not establish that he performed in a leading or critical capacity for organizations with distinguished reputations.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases: The petitioner’s participation in a scientific competition did not qualify as an artistic exhibition or showcase.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration: Not applicable based on the provided evidence.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts: Not applicable based on the provided evidence.
Supporting Documentation
The documentation included awards from competitions, interviews, and articles about the petitioner’s work in robotics, as well as recommendation letters from professionals in the field. However, the evidence did not meet the necessary criteria to demonstrate extraordinary ability.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal Dismissed
Reasoning: The petitioner did not meet the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or documentation that meets at least three of the ten criteria. The totality of the evidence did not support a finding of sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of his field.
Next Steps: The petitioner may consider gathering more substantial evidence of individual achievements and acclaim within the field, focusing on personal awards, critical reviews, and documented contributions of major significance to strengthen future petitions.
