EB-1 Extraordinary Ability USCIS Appeal Review –Mechanical Engineering Technical Specialist –MAY062022_01B2203

Date of Decision: May 6, 2022
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

None: The petitioner did not meet the initial evidentiary requirements set.

Criteria Not Met

Awards and Prizes: No evidence of major, internationally recognized awards was provided.
Published Materials: Insufficient documentation of published materials about the petitioner in major media.
Membership: Did not demonstrate membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements.
Original Contributions: Lacked evidence of original contributions of major significance to the field.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: Did not submit sufficient scholarly articles in major publications.
Exhibitions or Showcases: No evidence of artistic exhibitions or showcases was presented.
High Salary or Remuneration: Did not provide evidence of a high salary or other significantly high remuneration.
Commercial Success: No evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts was presented.

Key Points from the Decision

Awards and Prizes Won:

• The petitioner did not submit evidence of receiving major, internationally recognized awards or prizes.

Published Materials About the Petitioner:

• No significant published material in professional or major trade publications was provided.

Original Contributions of Major Significance:

• The evidence did not demonstrate that the petitioner made original contributions of major significance in the field of mechanical engineering.

Participation as a Judge:

• The petitioner did not provide evidence of participation as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field.

Membership in Associations:

• There was no evidence of membership in associations that require outstanding achievements of their members.

Authorship of Scholarly Articles:

• The petitioner failed to submit sufficient scholarly articles in major trade publications or other major media.

Leading or Critical Role Performed:

• The petitioner did not provide evidence of leading or critical roles for organizations or establishments with a distinguished reputation.

Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:

• No evidence of artistic exhibitions or showcases was presented.

Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:

• The petitioner did not provide evidence of a high salary or other significantly high remuneration.

Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:

• The petitioner did not demonstrate commercial successes in the performing arts.

Supporting Documentation

1. Initial Appeal Filed in September 2018: Consisted solely of a Form I-290B and a check for the filing fee.
2. First Combined Motion to Reopen and Reconsider (January 2019): Included Form I-290B with a brief and supporting exhibits.
3. October 2019 Decision: Rejected the petitioner’s appeal on jurisdictional grounds.
4. Several USCIS Receipt Notices: Submitted with the current motion.
5. September 25, 2019 Letter from USCIS: Sent in response to correspondence regarding the June 2019 decision.

Conclusion

Final Determination: The motion to reopen and the motion to reconsider are dismissed.

Reasoning:

• The petitioner did not meet the requirements for reopening the appeal as no new facts or evidence were provided to demonstrate eligibility.
• The motion to reconsider failed to establish any incorrect application of law or USCIS policy in previous decisions.

Next Steps:

• The petitioner should gather substantial new evidence that meets the evidentiary criteria and consider re-filing the petition if eligible.

Download the Full Petition Review Here

---

Cite as Matter of G-M-, ID# 20221656
Document: MAY062022_01B2203