Date of Decision: SEPT. 24, 2015
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Industrial Engineer
Field: Sciences
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Participation as a Judge
The Petitioner provided evidence of serving as a judge for the work of others in the field of engineering.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles
The Petitioner documented authorship of scholarly articles in professional publications.
Criteria Not Met:
Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
The Petitioner submitted evidence of awards that were not recognized beyond specific contexts and thus did not meet the required criteria.
Published material about the alien in major media
The submitted articles mentioned the Petitioner but were not primarily about him, and the publications did not qualify as major media.
Original contributions of major significance
The Petitioner’s work, while valuable, did not demonstrate a significant impact on the field as required.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The Petitioner submitted evidence of an award from a company for contributions to data analytics, but it was not recognized as nationally or internationally significant.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Articles were provided that mentioned the Petitioner and his work but were not considered substantial enough to meet the criteria.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Despite submissions of patents, invention disclosures, and citations, the evidence did not establish the Petitioner’s contributions as having a major impact on the field.
Participation as a Judge:
Evidence confirmed that the Petitioner served as a judge in their field, meeting this criterion.
Membership in Associations:
The appeal did not provide adequate evidence that the Petitioner’s membership in professional associations met the required level of recognition.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Petitioner demonstrated authorship of scholarly articles, which was considered valid evidence.
Supporting Documentation
- Award Documentation – Summarized the Petitioner’s awards and their limited recognition.
- Published Articles – Provided titles and summaries of articles mentioning the Petitioner.
- Patents and Invention Disclosures – Detailed the Petitioner’s submissions and their lack of demonstrated impact.
- Letters of Support – Included letters from colleagues and experts affirming the potential impact of the Petitioner’s work.
Conclusion
Final Determination:
The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning:
The Petitioner did not satisfy the initial evidence requirements, as the awards were not nationally or internationally recognized, and the contributions were not demonstrated to be of major significance.
Next Steps:
It is recommended that the Petitioner gather more substantial evidence of significant impact and recognition in their field before reapplying.
