Date of Decision: February 02, 2021
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Mechanical Engineering Specialist
Field: Mechanical Engineering
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Original Contributions of Major Significance
The Petitioner provided evidence of contributions as a Tech Specialist at [Company Name]. However, this was not recognized as rising to the level required for this criterion.
Criteria Not Met:
Major Internationally Recognized Award
The Petitioner presented a “Certificate of Recognition” from an event in 2016, which was not deemed equivalent to a Nobel Prize or similar major award.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles
The Petitioner cited customer reviews on a company’s website as evidence, which did not meet the requirement for scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications.
Published Material About the Petitioner
No relevant evidence meeting the standard for this criterion was provided.
Participation as a Judge
No evidence of participation as a judge of the work of others in the same or allied field was presented.
Membership in Associations
No evidence was provided to show membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The Petitioner claimed recognition through a certificate and international recognition from [Company Name], but these did not meet the high standards required for major, internationally recognized awards.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The Petitioner did not provide adequate evidence of published material about them in professional or major trade publications.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The evidence provided was related to employment and a student project, which were not sufficient to demonstrate extraordinary ability.
Participation as a Judge:
The Petitioner did not provide evidence of judging others’ work in their field.
Membership in Associations:
No evidence of memberships requiring outstanding achievements was submitted.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Petitioner cited customer reviews, which did not qualify as scholarly articles.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
No evidence was presented for a leading or critical role within organizations.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not applicable.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
Certificate of Recognition
Provided by [Event Name], 2016.
Customer Reviews
Posted on a company website related to ventilation and electrical systems.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Dismissed
Reasoning:
The Petitioner failed to meet the criteria required to establish extraordinary ability. The submitted evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim nor the requisite recognition within the field.
Next Steps:
The Petitioner may consider gathering more robust evidence to support any future petitions, ensuring that it meets the specific evidentiary criteria and clearly demonstrates extraordinary ability.
