Date of Decision: October 20, 2020
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Master Mariner and Specialist Surveyor
Field: Maritime
Nationality: [Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Leading or Critical Role: The Petitioner demonstrated leading or critical roles within the maritime industry, satisfying the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii).
Criteria Not Met:
Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to show that his awards were nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). The Honorary Helmsman Award mentioned was received after the petition was filed and therefore cannot be considered.
Membership in Associations: The Petitioner’s membership in the International Institute of Marine Surveying (IIMS) did not require outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii).
Published Material: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of published material in major media about him, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). The articles focused on the Petitioner’s company rather than his individual achievements.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that his contributions were of major significance in the field, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v).
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of awards that meet the required criterion. The Honorary Helmsman Award was received after the petition was filed and therefore cannot be considered.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The materials submitted did not qualify as professional or major media. The articles focused on the Petitioner’s company rather than his individual achievements.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner’s contributions, while recognized within his company, did not demonstrate major significance in the field of maritime surveying and consulting.
Participation as a Judge:
Not applicable.
Membership in Associations:
The Petitioner’s membership in the IIMS did not meet the criterion of requiring outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Not applicable.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The Petitioner demonstrated leading roles within the maritime industry, meeting this criterion.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not applicable.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
The Petitioner provided various supporting documents, including letters of recommendation, articles, and evidence of leading roles in his company. However, these did not collectively establish the required criteria for extraordinary ability.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not demonstrate that he met at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. The evidence provided did not establish his awards as nationally or internationally recognized, his published material as major media, or his contributions as of major significance. The Petitioner did not show that his memberships required outstanding achievements or that his contributions were widely recognized.
Next Steps: The Petitioner may consider submitting additional evidence that clearly establishes the major significance of his contributions or explore other immigration options that may better fit his qualifications.
