Date of Decision: February 3, 2021
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
- Profession: Professor
- Field: Mechanical Engineering
- Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
- Initial Decision: Denied
- Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner authored numerous scholarly articles in reputable journals.
Leading or Critical Role: The petitioner held leading and critical roles in academic and professional settings.
Participation as a Judge: The petitioner participated as a judge for postgraduate theses and journal papers.
Criteria Not Met:
Published Material About the Petitioner: The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of published material specifically about him in professional or major media.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The evidence provided did not demonstrate that the petitioner’s contributions had a significant impact on the field.
Awards and Prizes Won: The petitioner did not establish that any awards received were of national or international acclaim.
Membership in Associations: The petitioner did not demonstrate that memberships in professional societies were prestigious or indicative of extraordinary ability.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner received an award for a poster at the International Conference on Fluid Mechanics in 2003, but this did not demonstrate national or international acclaim.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The petitioner submitted articles and media mentions, but they were not specifically about his achievements or impact in the field.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner’s patents and technological contributions were promising but had not yet demonstrated significant impact in the field.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner judged postgraduate theses and journal papers. However, this experience was limited to evaluating work of students rather than recognized professionals.
Membership in Associations:
The petitioner was a member of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers and the Nigerian Society of Engineers, but these memberships were not shown to be extraordinary.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner authored 25 scholarly articles, which were cited almost 650 times. However, this did not alone demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner served in various roles at universities and conferences but did not show these positions garnered significant attention or acclaim.
Supporting Documentation
Articles and Media Mentions: Various articles from professional journals and media.
Patents: Evidence of patents and technological contributions.
Letters of Recommendation: Letters discussing the petitioner’s work and its potential impact.
Professional Roles: Documentation of the petitioner’s roles and responsibilities in academic and professional settings.
Conference Participation: Evidence of participation and awards received at professional conferences.
Memberships: Membership certificates and letters from professional societies.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal Dismissed
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not meet the stringent criteria required for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. Although the petitioner demonstrated significant achievements, the evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field.
Next Steps:
For future petitions, it is recommended that the petitioner provide more substantial evidence demonstrating widespread recognition and significant impact within his field. Detailed documentation of his contributions and their influence on the industry would be beneficial.
