Date of Decision: June 18, 2019
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Industrial Engineer
Field: Quality Engineering and Process Control
Nationality:
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Criterion 1: Authorship of scholarly articles: The petitioner authored two scholarly articles published in the journal Quality Engineering.
Criterion 2: High salary: The petitioner’s salary and total remuneration are high compared to others in his field, as evidenced by data from the Office of Foreign Labor Certification and other public sources.
Criteria Not Met:
Criterion 1: Original scientific contributions: The evidence did not establish significant contributions of major significance in the field beyond being a productive team member.
Criterion 2: Leading or critical role: The petitioner failed to demonstrate a critical role that had a significant impact on the overall activities of the organizations where he was employed. Despite contributions, the evidence did not sufficiently establish their importance to the organization’s overall success.
Key Points from the Decision
Authorship of scholarly articles: The petitioner’s contributions to scholarly articles were acknowledged as fulfilling one of the evidentiary criteria.
Leading or critical role performed: Despite detailed support from references, the Appeal Office agreed with the initial decision that the petitioner’s roles, although valuable, were not critical to the overall success of the organizations involved.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration: The petitioner’s salary was recognized as significantly higher than average for his field, meeting one of the necessary criteria.
Supporting Documentation
- Scholarly Articles: Two publications in Quality Engineering.
- Salary Documentation: Comparisons and data validating the high remuneration in the field.
- Reference Letters: Detailed letters from supervisors and colleagues highlighting the petitioner’s roles and contributions.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed as the petitioner did not meet the required number of evidentiary criteria and thus could not demonstrate the extraordinary ability needed for the EB-1 classification.
Reasoning: The evidence was not sufficient to prove that the petitioner stands at the very top of his field or that his contributions were of major significance to the field as a whole.
Next Steps: No specific recommendations were provided for the petitioner in the document, suggesting the need for significantly stronger evidence to meet the stringent requirements of the EB-1 category in future petitions.
