Date of Decision: August 9, 2023
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Mechanical Engineering Technical Specialist
Field: Mechanical Engineering
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
No specific criteria were mentioned as met in the provided document.
Criteria Not Met:
- Evidence of one-time achievement (major international award): The petitioner did not satisfy this criterion.
- Documentation of receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor: Not met.
- Membership in associations that require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields: Not met.
- Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media, relating to the alien’s work in the field for which classification is sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation: Not met.
- Participation as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which classification is sought: Not met.
- Evidence of the alien’s original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field: Not met.
- Authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade publications or other major media: Not met.
- Display of the alien’s work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases: Not met.
- Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation: Not met.
- Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field: Not met.
- Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales: Not met.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Not applicable
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Not applicable
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate original contributions of major significance in the field of mechanical engineering.
Participation as a Judge:
Not applicable
Membership in Associations:
Not applicable
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Not applicable
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Not applicable
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not applicable
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable
Supporting Documentation
- Initial Filing (July 2017): The petitioner’s initial submission for consideration under the EB-1 classification.
- First Denial (August 2018): The Director denied the petition due to insufficient evidence.
- First Appeal (September 2018): Summarily dismissed due to lack of supporting brief or additional evidence.
- Subsequent Motions (2019-2023): Multiple motions to reopen and reconsider, all dismissed due to lack of new evidence or incorrect application of law or policy.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The motion to reopen and reconsider is dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner’s repeated motions failed to introduce new evidence or adequately address the reasons for the previous denials. The appeals and motions primarily reiterated arguments without addressing the core deficiencies identified in the initial and subsequent decisions.
Next Steps:
The petitioner should carefully review the specific evidentiary requirements for EB-1 classification and ensure that any future petitions or motions address the deficiencies noted in previous decisions. It may also be beneficial to seek professional legal assistance to better understand and meet the criteria.
