Date of Decision: AUG. 31, 2016
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Geologist and Petroleum Researcher
Field: Hydrocarbon Accumulating Modeling
Nationality: [Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Authorship of scholarly articles: The Petitioner identified at least three scholarly articles published in professional journals such as [journal names not specified in the snippet]. This criterion was met based on the provided evidence.
Criteria Not Met:
Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor: The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that the awards were nationally or internationally recognized. Issues included unclear awarding entities and improper translation of documents.
Participation as a judge of the work of others: The petitioner’s mentorship roles did not meet the requirement of serving as a formal judge in a capacity outlined in the regulation.
Original contributions of major significance: Although the petitioner led several research projects, the evidence did not demonstrate the impact of these findings on the field of oil and gas exploration.
Leading or critical role: The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that his roles were leading or critical within distinguished organizations.
High salary or other significantly high remuneration: The petitioner did not provide comparative evidence to establish that his salary was significantly high in relation to others in his field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner’s claim of awards was insufficient due to unclear awarding bodies and lack of evidence demonstrating national or international recognition.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Evidence was not provided to substantiate claims of significant published materials about the petitioner.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Letters from colleagues stated the petitioner’s contributions but lacked specific examples or impact beyond his employer.
Participation as a Judge:
Mentorship roles were not sufficient to meet the criterion of serving as a judge of others’ work in a formal capacity.
Membership in Associations:
There was no specific mention of this criterion in the provided snippet.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Three articles published in professional journals were accepted as evidence.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Insufficient evidence to prove that the petitioner’s roles were leading or critical in organizations with distinguished reputations.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable in this case.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The petitioner did not provide adequate comparative data to establish his salary as significantly high.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable in this case.
Supporting Documentation
The petitioner submitted various documents, including award certificates and letters from colleagues. However, issues such as improper translations and lack of detailed evidence affected their credibility.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not meet the burden of proof required to demonstrate eligibility for the EB-1 classification. Although some criteria were met, the overall evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim.
Next Steps:
The petitioner may consider gathering more robust evidence, properly translated documents, and additional supporting materials to address the deficiencies highlighted in the decision.
