Date of Decision: August 17, 2017
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Lawyer and Engineer
Field: Intellectual Property Law, E-Business, Engineering Solutions
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Published Material: The petitioner provided evidence of an article published about him, as well as his authorship of a scholarly article and two chapters in a book.
Leading or Critical Role: The petitioner demonstrated his role as a member of the Board of Directors of a significant professional organization.
Scholarly Articles: The petitioner authored scholarly articles, meeting the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi).
Criteria Not Met:
Awards: The petitioner did not demonstrate that his awards are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in his field. The awards did not receive significant press coverage or establish a high level of acclaim.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to show that his contributions had a major impact on his field. While he described ongoing projects and pending patents, he did not show how these had garnered national or international acclaim.
Membership in Associations: While the petitioner demonstrated membership in several professional organizations, he did not show that these memberships reflected sustained national or international acclaim or that he was among the small percentage at the top of his field.
Judging the Work of Others: The petitioner served on an interview panel to select a CEO, but he did not provide detailed information about his role, the process, or how this demonstrated his standing in the field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner provided documentation for several awards, but these were not shown to be recognized nationally or internationally for excellence in the field.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The petitioner submitted articles and other published materials, but they did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim. Additionally, some articles mentioned the petitioner but did not focus on his work.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner provided descriptions of his contributions, but did not provide evidence of their impact or recognition within his field.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner served on an interview panel, but the evidence provided did not demonstrate how this role indicated his standing in the field.
Membership in Associations:
The petitioner demonstrated membership in several professional organizations, but did not show how these memberships reflected sustained national or international acclaim.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner authored scholarly articles, which met this criterion.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner demonstrated a leading role in a professional organization, but did not show how this reflected sustained acclaim or placed him at the top of his field.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable in this case.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not applicable in this case.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable in this case.
Supporting Documentation
- Certificates and Awards: Documentation of various awards and certificates received by the petitioner.
- Articles and Publications: Various articles and publications mentioning or authored by the petitioner.
- Letters of Support: Letters from peers and colleagues in the legal and engineering fields.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not demonstrate a one-time major achievement or satisfy at least three of the ten regulatory criteria required for EB-1 classification. Despite notable achievements, the petitioner did not establish the level of extraordinary ability required.
Next Steps: The petitioner should consider reapplying with additional evidence or exploring other visa categories that may better suit their qualifications and achievements.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
