Date of Decision: September 19, 2024
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Nanofluid Engineering Specialist
Field: Nanofluid Research and Mechanical Engineering
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
The petitioner claimed eligibility under multiple regulatory criteria and met three of the ten outlined in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). However, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) determined that the petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or recognition as being among the small percentage at the very top of their field.
Criteria Met:
- Participation as a Judge of the Work of Others:
- Evidence demonstrated the petitioner’s role in reviewing 12 scholarly articles between 2007 and 2015.
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
- The petitioner authored two scholarly publications in 2007 and 2010, with approximately 2,400 total citations, including significant recognition of one paper.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- The petitioner’s publications and peer-review activity were acknowledged, but the AAO determined that their influence was insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.
Final Merits Determination:
The AAO concluded that the petitioner’s evidence did not demonstrate the level of sustained acclaim necessary for EB-1 classification.
Key Points from the Decision
Director’s Findings:
- While the petitioner satisfied three evidentiary criteria, the totality of evidence did not establish that the petitioner was among the small percentage at the very top of the field of nanofluid research.
Sustained Acclaim:
- The AAO noted that the petitioner’s publication activity ceased in 2010, and peer-review activities were sporadic, with no documented contributions after 2015.
Comparison to Top Experts:
- The AAO compared the petitioner’s citation record and publication history to others in the field, noting that top researchers typically have hundreds of publications and significantly more citations.
Field Definition:
- The petitioner argued for recognition as a nanofluid engineering specialist rather than a mechanical engineer. However, the AAO noted insufficient evidence supporting the petitioner’s claim as a leader in nanofluid research.
Supporting Documentation
Judging Evidence: Records of peer review for 12 scholarly articles.
Authorship Evidence: Two publications with a combined total of approximately 2,400 citations.
Contribution Evidence: Letters and evidence highlighting the petitioner’s research contributions, deemed insufficient for sustained acclaim.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner met three regulatory criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). However, the evidence failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or recognition as one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of nanofluid research.
