Date of Decision: May 26, 2021
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Engineer
Field: Engineering
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met: None
Criteria Not Met:
Published Material About the Petitioner: The petitioner provided various articles, but they either did not mention him by name or lacked evidence to show that they were professional or major trade publications.
Judging the Work of Others: The petitioner claimed to judge the work of others, but the evidence provided (photographs and documents) did not clearly establish formal designation as a judge in his field.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner provided books and articles, but did not establish that these were scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications.
Display of Work at Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases: The petitioner claimed his presentations at scholarly exhibitions were comparable, but did not justify why comparable evidence was necessary.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: Claimed but not sufficiently supported by evidence.
Leading or Critical Role: Claimed but not sufficiently supported by evidence.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner did not provide evidence of receiving any nationally or internationally recognized awards.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Articles submitted did not directly discuss the petitioner’s work or lacked sufficient circulation data to qualify as major publications.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner’s research articles and contributions were recognized, but the evidence provided did not show they had a major impact on the field.
Judging the Work of Others:
The petitioner provided photographs and documents suggesting he judged others’ work, but lacked formal evidence of being designated as a judge.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Books and articles submitted were not established as scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications.
Display of Work at Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Presentations at scholarly exhibitions were claimed as comparable evidence but not justified under the regulation.
Supporting Documentation
Judging Documentation: Photographs and documents suggesting judging activities, but lacking formal designation.
Published Materials: Various articles and books, but not established as major publications or scholarly articles.
Original Contributions Documentation: Research articles and reference letters, but lacking detailed impact analysis.
Leading or Critical Role Documentation: Claimed but not sufficiently supported by detailed examples.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal Dismissed
Reasoning: The petitioner did not meet the required evidentiary criteria to demonstrate extraordinary ability. None of the criteria claimed were sufficiently supported by the evidence provided. The petitioner failed to establish eligibility under the required three criteria.
Next Steps: The petitioner may consider gathering more substantial evidence of nationally or internationally recognized awards, providing detailed documentation of the selection process and achievements required for membership in associations, and demonstrating formal designation as a judge in his field if reapplying.
