Date of Decision: June 13, 2022
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Engineering Manager
Field: Engineering
Nationality: [Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met
Criterion (viii): Leading or Critical Role
- The Petitioner holds a position of significant responsibility at a major company, earning compensation in excess of half a million dollars per year. He performs a leading role in his organization, which has a distinguished reputation.
Criterion (ix): High Remuneration for Services
- The Petitioner’s compensation is substantial, indicating high remuneration for his services.
Criterion (iv): Participation as a Judge
- The Petitioner has participated as a judge of the work of others, which meets the criterion for extraordinary ability.
Criteria Not Met
Criterion (v): Original Contributions of Major Significance
- The Petitioner’s work includes significant contributions within his company, but there is insufficient evidence to show that these contributions have earned national or international acclaim.
Criterion (vi): Authorship of Scholarly Articles (Comparable Evidence)
- The Petitioner’s internal company materials were claimed as comparable evidence, but this did not suffice to meet the criterion for authorship of scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
- No major, internationally recognized awards were indicated.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
- The Petitioner did not provide sufficient published materials about his work that demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- Although the Petitioner made significant contributions within his organization, he failed to demonstrate that these contributions had a broader impact or recognition outside his company.
Participation as a Judge:
- The Petitioner served on various committees and review panels, but the evidence did not establish that his participation was uncommon or recognized outside his company.
Membership in Associations:
- There was no specific evidence indicating membership in associations that would contribute to demonstrating extraordinary ability.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
- The Petitioner’s claim of internal documents as comparable evidence for scholarly articles was not accepted as sufficient.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
- The Petitioner’s role within his organization was recognized as significant, but this alone did not demonstrate national or international acclaim.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
- Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
- The Petitioner’s high salary was acknowledged as evidence of his significant role within the company.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
- Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
- Letters from Colleagues: Various letters aimed to demonstrate the Petitioner’s impact in his field. However, these letters contained qualifiers that limited the scope of his contributions and lacked specificity and corroboration.
- Evidence of Work Impact: The Petitioner claimed that his innovations had a ripple effect in the industry, but the evidence did not support widespread adoption or recognition.
- Committee Participation: Documents showing the Petitioner’s involvement in review panels and committees, but without context, these did not establish broader recognition.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. The evidence provided showed significant achievements within his company but did not establish broader recognition necessary for this highly restrictive visa classification.
Next Steps: The Petitioner may consider gathering more substantial evidence of national or international acclaim, possibly through publications, awards, and recognition from outside his current organization.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
Cite as Matter of G-M-, ID# 20215990
JUN132022_01B2203
