Date of Decision: March 3, 2021
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Industrial Engineer
Field: Industrial Design
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards: The Petitioner provided evidence of receiving two awards recognized nationally in his field, despite some limitations on the competitions’ participants.
Published material about the alien in professional or major media: The Petitioner submitted articles about his work published in major media, including national-level publications in Canada.
Display at artistic exhibitions or showcases: Demonstrated by evidence showing the display of his work at various exhibitions.
Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments: The Petitioner demonstrated his critical role at his employer, an industrial design company, where he held positions such as creative director and lead designer.
Criteria Not Met:
Original contributions of major significance: The letters of support did not sufficiently explain how the Petitioner’s contributions were of major significance in the field. The provided patents and lectures also lacked evidence of significant impact.
High remuneration for services: The Petitioner’s earnings did not demonstrate a high salary relative to others in the field, with his earnings being below the mean salary for similar positions.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner received awards that were recognized nationally but did not demonstrate the level of sustained acclaim required.
Key quotes or references: “His awards consisted of the ‘established’ category for the 2016 Design Competition and the 2011 Challenge Design award.”
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner provided articles published in national-level media, but the overall media coverage was not sufficient to demonstrate the necessary level of acclaim.
Key quotes or references: “Published material covering the Petitioner and his work first appeared in 2016 in a national-level publication in Canada relating to one of his awards.”
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Summary of findings: The advisory letters and evidence of patents did not demonstrate that the Petitioner’s contributions were of major significance in the field.
Key quotes or references: “The record lacks an explanation of how any of those patents made any impact in the Petitioner’s field of industrial design.”
Participation as a Judge:
Summary of findings: Not claimed or evaluated.
Membership in Associations:
Summary of findings: Not claimed or evaluated.
Authorship of scholarly articles:
Summary of findings: Not claimed or evaluated.
Leading or critical role performed:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner demonstrated his role was critical at his employer, but did not provide sufficient evidence for other claimed organizations.
Key quotes or references: “The Petitioner has satisfied the plain language requirements of this criterion through his roles performed for an industrial design company based in [location].”
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner’s work was displayed at various exhibitions, but the prestige of these venues was not sufficiently established.
Key quotes or references: “His showings largely consisted of small and local events.”
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner’s earnings were below the average for similar positions, failing to demonstrate a high salary relative to others in the field.
Key quotes or references: “Comparing his earnings to the mean or median salaries for those performing similar work in the area does not demonstrate his salary was high.”
Commercial successes in the Performing Arts:
Summary of findings: Not applicable in this case as it was not claimed or evaluated.
Supporting Documentation
Awards certificates and competition results: Provided evidence of various awards but did not sufficiently establish the prestige of these awards.
Articles and media coverage: Included notable articles from national-level publications, but overall media coverage did not demonstrate the necessary level of acclaim.
Judging documentation: Not claimed or evaluated.
Exhibition records: Evidence of participation in exhibitions, but the prestige of these events was questioned.
Remuneration records: Provided tax returns and letters indicating remuneration, but lacked comparative data showing high salary relative to others in the field.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal dismissed. The Petitioner did not demonstrate eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability.
Reasoning: The evidence provided did not establish that the Petitioner has risen to the very top of his field, nor did it demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.
Next Steps:
Recommendations: The Petitioner may consider gathering more substantial evidence of high prestige awards, more significant media coverage, and more substantial documentation of high remuneration.
Next steps for the petitioner: Review the decision in detail, address the noted deficiencies, and consider reapplying with additional supporting evidence.
