Date of Decision: July 10, 2024
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Engineer
Field: Engineering and Management
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Not Met:
- Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Awards:
- The petitioner submitted evidence of awards such as the Weidmuller Klippon Award, Safety Award, and Project Excellence Award.
- The AAO concluded that these awards were internal and specific to the petitioner’s employer, not nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field.
- Membership in Associations:
- The petitioner claimed membership in the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) and the Jordanian Engineers Association (JEA).
- The AAO determined that the associations did not require outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts for membership.
- Published Material About the Petitioner:
- The petitioner provided reports authored in the course of his work.
- The AAO concluded that the material must be about the petitioner, not authored by him, and in major media or trade publications.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- Letters of recommendation praised the petitioner’s work but lacked corroboration of major impact on the engineering field.
- Evidence of published work was insufficient to demonstrate significant influence.
- High Salary or Remuneration:
- The petitioner’s submitted salary data lacked comparative information to demonstrate that it was high in relation to peers in the engineering field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards:
The awards submitted did not demonstrate national or international recognition for excellence in engineering but were internal acknowledgments.
Membership in Associations:
Membership in ASME and JEA did not reflect outstanding achievements judged by experts in the field.
Published Material:
The petitioner’s authored materials were insufficient as evidence since they focused on his own work rather than external recognition in major publications.
Original Contributions:
Evidence provided lacked specific examples or independent corroboration of significant contributions to the engineering field.
Salary Evidence:
The petitioner’s bank statements and pay stubs did not provide sufficient context to compare with industry standards for top salaries.
Supporting Documentation
Awards Evidence: Provided but limited to employer-specific recognition.
Membership Evidence: Insufficient documentation of criteria requiring outstanding achievements.
Published Materials: Authored reports not qualifying as published material about the petitioner.
Salary Documentation: Bank statements and pay stubs without comparative context.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner failed to meet at least three regulatory criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim. The petition remains denied.
