Date of Decision: February 26, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Mechanical Engineer
Field: Robotics and Mechanical Engineering
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Participation as a judge of the work of others: The petitioner participated in peer review of papers submitted for publication in journals or presentation at conferences.
Original contributions of major significance: The petitioner made significant contributions in three interrelated projects involving robotic technology.
Authorship of scholarly articles: The petitioner authored several scholarly articles that were cited by other researchers in the field.
Criteria Not Met:
Awards and Prizes Won: No major, internationally recognized award was provided.
Published Materials About the Petitioner: Although there were some published materials, they did not sufficiently demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.
Leading or critical role performed: The petitioner did not provide evidence showing a consistently greater impact than other researchers at the same institution during the same period.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration: No evidence was provided to support this criterion.
Commercial successes in the Performing Arts: Not applicable to this case.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner did not submit any major, internationally recognized awards.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The materials did not demonstrate the level of acclaim required. Some citations and mentions were highlighted, but they were not sufficient to establish the petitioner’s extraordinary ability.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner made contributions in:
Pioneering robotic technology for space debris removal.
Robotic technology for UAV/drone applications.
Technology used in manufacturing, such as handling glass panels and delicate objects.
Letters from collaborators and independent researchers supported the petitioner’s claims but were deemed insufficient to demonstrate sustained acclaim.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner’s peer review activities were acknowledged but did not elevate his standing above other experts in the field.
Membership in Associations:
Not specified in the document.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner authored several articles, with some being cited by other researchers. However, the citation impact was not sufficient to demonstrate extraordinary ability.
Supporting Documentation
Letters from Experts: Provided by both collaborators and independent researchers.
Published Papers: Submitted papers and citation statistics.
Project Descriptions: Detailed contributions to specific projects in robotics.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.
The petitioner’s work, while significant, did not rise to the level required for the EB1 Extraordinary Ability classification.
The recognition and acclaim were largely associated with the institution rather than the petitioner individually.
Next Steps:
The petitioner may consider gathering additional evidence of extraordinary ability or exploring other visa classifications that may be more appropriate for their qualifications and achievements.
