Date of Decision: January 2, 2019
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Environmental Engineer
Field: Environmental Engineering
Nationality:
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Authorship of scholarly articles:
The petitioner has authored several scholarly articles published in professional publications, including the Journal of Residuals Science and Technology and Biochemical Engineering Journal.
Criteria Not Met:
Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field:
The petitioner provided awards that were not sufficiently documented as nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in environmental engineering.
Membership in associations that require outstanding achievements:
The petitioner’s memberships in various associations lacked evidence showing that these associations require outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Published material about the alien in major trade publications or major media:
The petitioner submitted documents that were either partially translated or did not meet the requirements for major trade publications or major media.
Participation as a judge of the work of others:
The evidence provided showed appointments but did not demonstrate actual participation in judging the work of others.
Original contributions of major significance in the field:
While the petitioner provided evidence of original work and patents, there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that these contributions were of major significance in the field.
Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations:
The petitioner held various positions and titles but did not provide sufficient evidence detailing the specific duties and impact on the organizations.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner claimed several awards, but the documentation did not establish their recognition at a national or international level. Statements from peers were insufficient without independent and credible evidence.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The petitioner submitted partially translated articles which did not meet regulatory requirements. Even if considered, they were self-authored descriptions and did not qualify as published material about the petitioner.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner provided evidence of patents and scholarly articles, but there was a lack of independent evidence showing that these contributions had a significant impact on the field.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner demonstrated appointments as a judge and editor but lacked evidence of actual participation and specific duties performed.
Membership in Associations:
The petitioner’s memberships were not supported by evidence showing that these associations required outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner met this criterion with articles published in recognized professional publications.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner held several significant roles but did not provide sufficient evidence detailing the importance and impact of these roles.
Supporting Documentation
- Awards Certificates: Provided but insufficiently documented for national or international recognition.
- Association Membership Certificates: Provided but lacked corroborating evidence of the selection criteria.
- Published Articles: Authored by the petitioner and published in professional journals.
- Appointment Letters: Indicating roles as a judge and editor but lacking details of participation.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not meet the required initial evidence criteria and failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim. The documentation provided did not establish the petitioner’s extraordinary ability as required by the EB1 classification.
Next Steps: The petitioner may consider providing more comprehensive and independently verifiable evidence if reapplying.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
