Date of Decision: October 3, 2016
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Professional Engineer
Field: Storm Water and Erosion Control
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- None
Criteria Not Met:
- Awards: The petitioner contended that his “Professional Engineer” title and licenses from Michigan and Wisconsin are awards. However, the decision stated that these do not qualify as nationally or internationally recognized prizes for excellence.
- Membership in Associations: The petitioner claimed membership in an unspecified association based on his engineering license. The decision found that membership requirements based on employment or activity do not meet the criterion of outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts.
- Published Material: The petitioner submitted two articles in which he was mentioned in a photo caption but not discussed in detail. The decision noted that the articles were about students studying flood models, not the petitioner, and thus did not meet the criterion.
- Judging the Work of Others: The petitioner indicated that his job involved overseeing storm water and erosion control practices. The decision concluded that this did not constitute formal judging consistent with the regulatory criterion.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance: The petitioner’s work on a team to assist Michigan in creating a flood prediction model was mentioned. However, the decision noted a lack of evidence demonstrating the model’s impact or its wide application, failing to meet the criterion.
- Leading or Critical Role: The petitioner claimed his role as an assistant regional storm water and erosion control engineer was a leading or critical role. The decision determined that his position did not establish him as having a leading role within the organizational structure.
- High Salary or Remuneration: The petitioner provided pay stubs but did not compare his salary to others in the field. The decision found insufficient evidence to establish that he commanded a high salary in relation to others in the field.
Key Points from the Decision
- Awards and Prizes Won: The petitioner’s licenses were not considered equivalent to nationally or internationally recognized awards for excellence.
- Published Materials About the Petitioner: Articles provided did not primarily discuss the petitioner, failing to meet the required criterion.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance: Insufficient evidence was provided to show the significant impact or wide application of the petitioner’s work on the flood prediction model.
- Participation as a Judge: The petitioner’s oversight duties did not qualify as formal judging of the work of others.
- Membership in Associations: Membership based on professional licensure did not meet the standard of outstanding achievements judged by experts.
- High Salary or Remuneration: The petitioner’s salary was not demonstrated to be high relative to others in the field.
Supporting Documentation
- Professional Engineer Licenses: Documentation of licenses from Michigan and Wisconsin.
- Articles: Two articles discussing student projects on flood models.
- Job Descriptions and Emails: Information regarding the petitioner’s role and duties in overseeing storm water and erosion control practices.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal dismissed
Reasoning: The petitioner did not meet at least three of the ten regulatory criteria necessary for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. The provided evidence was found lacking in demonstrating the petitioner’s extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim.
Next Steps: The petitioner may consider submitting additional evidence that better aligns with the required criteria or exploring other immigration options.
