EB-1 Extraordinary Ability USCIS Appeal Review – Engineer – JUL102024_02B2203

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 Innovation Development
Nationality: Not specified in the document

Summary of Decision

Initial Decision: Approved, later revoked
Appeal Outcome: Withdrawn and remanded for further determination

Evidentiary Criteria Analysis

Key Issues Discussed:

1. Translation Issues:
   • The Director noted that the petitioner’s translations of documents did not comply with the requirements outlined in 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b).
   • A single-page affidavit of translation was deemed insufficient as it did not specifically identify the translated documents.
2. Failure to Address Evidence:
   • The Director’s decision to revoke the approval did not adequately address the petitioner’s response to the Notice of Intent to Revoke (NOIR).
   • The petitioner argued that the evidence provided was sufficient to meet the initial evidentiary criteria, but the Director failed to provide a detailed analysis.
3. New Evidence on Appeal:
   • On appeal, the petitioner submitted a revised affidavit with a detailed list of translated documents, addressing the Director’s concerns about proper certification.

Criteria Claimed by the Petitioner:

1. Awards: Evidence of recognition in the engineering field.
2. Membership in Associations: Claimed eligibility based on membership in professional organizations.
3. Published Material: Submitted evidence of published articles about the petitioner.
4. Original Contributions: Highlighted significant innovations in engineering.
5. Scholarly Articles: Provided authored articles in professional journals.
6. High Salary: Submitted financial records to demonstrate remuneration above industry standards.
7. Critical Role: Evidence of leadership in organizations with distinguished reputations.

Key Points from the Decision

Failure to Justify Revocation:

• The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) found that the Director’s decision lacked a specific statement of facts and supporting evidence, as required under Matter of Estime.
• The revocation decision did not provide sufficient reasoning or address the rebuttal evidence submitted by the petitioner in response to the NOIR.

Remand for Reassessment:

• The AAO emphasized the need for a new NOIR that includes a detailed analysis of the petitioner’s qualifications and the evidence submitted.
• The remand also requires a review of the new evidence provided on appeal, including the updated translation affidavit.

Supporting Documentation

Translations: Revised affidavit addressing certification deficiencies.
Awards and Memberships: Submitted but not adequately analyzed by the Director.
Published Materials: Evidence of recognition in engineering publications.
Financial Records: Provided to demonstrate high remuneration.

Conclusion

Final Determination: The Director’s decision was withdrawn, and the matter was remanded for further determination.
Reasoning:
The AAO determined that the Director’s revocation lacked detailed analysis and failed to adequately consider the rebuttal evidence and additional documentation submitted by the petitioner. A new NOIR must address these deficiencies.

Download The Full Petition Review Here