Date of Decision: August 4, 2022
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Engineering Researcher
Field: Engineering
Nationality: [Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Participation as a judge of the work of others:
The petitioner provided evidence of participation as a judge of the work of others in his field, satisfying the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv).
Original contributions of major significance:
The petitioner demonstrated original contributions of major significance in the field of engineering, meeting the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v).
Authorship of scholarly articles:
The petitioner authored scholarly articles in professional publications, fulfilling the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi).
Criteria Not Met:
Sustained national or international acclaim:
The Director concluded that the petitioner did not establish sustained national or international acclaim necessary for the EB-1 classification.
Recognition at the top of the field:
The petitioner did not show that his achievements have been recognized as placing him among the small percentage at the very top of his field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Not applicable
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Not applicable
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- Summary of findings: The petitioner provided evidence of significant contributions in his field, but the final merits analysis by the Director did not thoroughly evaluate this evidence.
- Key quotes or references: “The Director’s decision did not sufficiently address why the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility for the requested classification.”
Participation as a Judge:
- Summary of findings: The petitioner submitted evidence supporting his role as a judge of the work of others in the field.
- Key quotes or references: “The Petitioner contends that the Director disregarded multiple expert opinion letters that address his standing in the field.”
Membership in Associations:
Not applicable
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
- Summary of findings: The petitioner authored numerous scholarly articles, but the final merits analysis did not fully consider the significance of these publications.
- Key quotes or references: “The Director’s final merits analysis applies incorrect standards in evaluating the Petitioner’s publication record and citation evidence.”
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Not applicable
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not applicable
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable
Supporting Documentation
- Judging Work: Evidence of participation as a judge of the work of others.
- Original Contributions: Documentation showing the importance and impact of the petitioner’s research contributions.
- Scholarly Articles: Numerous scholarly articles authored by the petitioner.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The decision of the Director is withdrawn, and the matter is remanded for the entry of a new decision.
Reasoning: The Director’s final merits analysis was found to be lacking in a detailed discussion of the evidence. The Director must evaluate the evidence together and consider the petition in its entirety to make a final merits determination.
Next Steps: The Director should review all the evidence provided, including additional documentation submitted on appeal, and issue a new decision considering the totality of the record.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
