Date of Decision: July 02, 2021
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Engineer specializing in system design
Field: Engineering Design
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Participation as a Judge: The petitioner was recognized for her role in judging the work of others within her field.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: Acknowledged for her contributions to professional publications.
Criteria Not Met:
Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards: The decision noted issues with the documentation and recognition of the awards claimed by the petitioner.
Leading or critical roles: There were inconsistencies in the evaluation of the petitioner’s roles within recognized organizations.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The decision questioned the impact and acknowledgment of the petitioner’s contributions to her field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner provided evidence of multiple awards, but the evaluation of these awards was found lacking in detail and clarity, leading to the decision being remanded.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The petitioner has authored several scholarly articles, which were recognized; however, the impact of these on her field was not deemed substantial enough in the initial decision.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The original contributions were acknowledged, but there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate their major significance nationally or internationally.
Participation as a Judge:
Recognized for her participation, but the scope and influence of this role were not detailed in the decision.
Membership in Associations:
Not discussed in the decision.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Confirmed, but the significance and influence of these publications in the broader field were under question.
Leading or critical role performed:
The evaluation of her roles was found to be lacking sufficient detail and adherence to the regulatory standards, prompting a remand for a more thorough review.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases, Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration, and Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable to the petitioner’s case as discussed in the available documents.
Supporting Documentation
Awards certificates, scholarly articles, employment verification letters, and organizational charts were submitted. The evaluation of these documents was deemed insufficient in the initial review.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The initial denial was withdrawn, and the case was remanded for further evaluation and a new decision, ensuring that the documentation is reviewed thoroughly and evaluated correctly as per regulatory standards.
Reasoning: The decision highlighted a need for a more detailed and precise evaluation of the evidence, particularly concerning the recognition and significance of awards and the petitioner’s roles in her field.
Next Steps: Upon remand, the Director is instructed to reassess the provided evidence against the specified criteria, conduct a final merits determination if the initial criteria are met, and ensure that the petitioner is given a fair opportunity to meet the extraordinary ability standards set forth by USCIS regulations.
