Date of Decision: July 14, 2021
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 in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Summarily Dismissed
Motion Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
None: The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to meet any of the required criteria for the extraordinary ability classification.
Criteria Not Met:
One-Time Achievement: The petitioner did not demonstrate a one-time major internationally recognized award.
Lesser Prizes or Awards: The petitioner did not provide evidence of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of mechanical engineering.
Membership in Associations: The petitioner did not establish that he held memberships in associations that require outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Published Material About the Petitioner: The petitioner did not provide evidence of published material about him in professional or major trade publications or other major media.
Participation as a Judge: The petitioner did not provide evidence of his participation as a judge of the work of others in his field.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The petitioner did not demonstrate original contributions of major significance in the field of mechanical engineering.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner did not provide evidence of authorship of scholarly articles in the field.
Leading or Critical Role: The petitioner did not demonstrate a leading or critical role in distinguished organizations.
High Salary: The petitioner did not provide evidence of a high salary or other significantly high remuneration in relation to others in the field.
Commercial Success: The petitioner did not provide evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner did not provide evidence of any major or lesser recognized awards for excellence in mechanical engineering.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
No published materials about the petitioner in professional or major trade publications were provided.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner’s contributions were not demonstrated to have major significance in the field.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner did not provide evidence of judging the work of others in his field.
Membership in Associations:
The petitioner’s memberships did not meet the criteria of requiring outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
No evidence was provided for authorship of scholarly articles.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner did not demonstrate a leading or critical role for any distinguished organizations.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases, Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration, and Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
No evidence was provided to meet these criteria.
Supporting Documentation
The petitioner submitted documents including previous motion filings, delivery confirmations, and correspondence but did not introduce new facts or evidence that could change the outcome of the previous decision.
Conclusion
Final Determination:
The petitioner’s motion to reopen and reconsider was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not provide new facts or evidence to support reopening the case, nor did he demonstrate that the prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or USCIS policy. Additionally, the petitioner failed to identify specific erroneous conclusions of law or statements of fact in the original denial or subsequent appeal dismissals.
Next Steps:
The petitioner may consider gathering more substantial and detailed evidence to support his claims and ensure all filing deadlines are met in future motions or appeals. Exploring other visa categories that align more closely with his achievements and current career stage may also be advisable.
