Date of Decision: March 27, 2019
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Integrated Optics Designer
Field: Optical Transport Systems
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met
Judging the work of others:
The petitioner served as a peer reviewer of manuscripts for journals.
Authorship of scholarly articles:
The petitioner authored scholarly articles in professional publications.
Criteria Not Met
Original scientific contributions of major significance:
The petitioner argued that his contributions to the field were of major significance, including leading a team to develop technology enabling high-speed data transfer. However, specific information on how these contributions significantly impacted the field was lacking. Recommendation letters praised the petitioner’s work but did not provide detailed evidence of its major significance.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won
Summary of findings: Not applicable.
Published Materials About the Petitioner
Summary of findings: Not applicable.
Original Contributions of Major Significance
Summary of findings:
The petitioner’s contributions, although innovative, were not demonstrated to have had a major impact on the field. Letters of recommendation were not specific enough to show significant influence or adoption of the petitioner’s work.
Participation as a Judge
Summary of findings:
The petitioner acted as a peer reviewer, which met the criterion.
Membership in Associations
Summary of findings: Not applicable.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles
Summary of findings:
The petitioner authored multiple scholarly articles that were published in professional journals, meeting the criterion.
Leading or Critical Role Performed
Summary of findings: Not applicable.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases
Summary of findings: Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration
Summary of findings: Not applicable.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts
Summary of findings: Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
- Letters of Recommendation: Praise the petitioner’s contributions but lack detailed evidence of major significance.
- Google Scholar Citations: Show 328 citations, indicating interest but not necessarily major significance in the field.
- Patent Documentation: Highlights originality but does not establish major significance.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not meet at least three of the ten required criteria. While the petitioner satisfied the judging and scholarly articles criteria, the evidence provided did not establish original contributions of major significance in the field. The letters and documentation lacked specific, detailed information necessary to prove the significant impact required for the classification sought.
Next Steps:
The petitioner may consider gathering more detailed evidence of significant contributions to the field and reapplying or exploring other visa classifications.
