Date of Decision: May 10, 2024
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Process Engineering Manager
Field: Process Engineering
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Leading or Critical Role: The petitioner demonstrated they held a leading or critical role within distinguished organizations.
Criteria Not Met:
- Original Contributions of Major Significance: The petitioner failed to provide detailed evidence that contributions were of major significance in the field. Letters lacked specifics and relied on general statements.
- High Remuneration for Services: Evidence submitted referenced remuneration earned after the petition filing date and was deemed insufficient.
- Other Claimed Criteria: The petitioner did not pursue claims related to lesser awards, membership in associations, or judging the work of others, effectively abandoning these claims.
Key Points from the Decision
Leading or Critical Role:
The petitioner demonstrated eligibility under this criterion by holding critical positions in distinguished organizations.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner provided letters from colleagues and mentors detailing contributions. However, these letters lacked specific examples or analysis demonstrating significant influence on the field. The Director concluded that the evidence did not meet the standard required under this criterion.
High Remuneration for Services:
Documentation of salary and benefits provided was for a period after the petition filing date, rendering it insufficient to meet this criterion at the time of filing.
Procedural Issues:
The petitioner’s motions to reopen and reconsider were dismissed due to submission of post-filing evidence and failure to address procedural requirements.
Supporting Documentation
Leading Role Evidence: Provided and accepted.
Contribution Letters: General statements without substantial examples of major significance.
Remuneration Evidence: Pay records and contracts submitted, but did not meet the timing requirement.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner failed to demonstrate eligibility under at least three regulatory criteria. Furthermore, motions to reopen and reconsider did not meet procedural requirements, and evidence submitted post-filing date was insufficient.
