EB-1 Extraordinary Ability USCIS Appeal Review – Professor of Engineering from Egypt – FEB032023_04B2203

Date of Decision: February 3, 2023
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability

Petitioner Information

• Profession: Professor of Engineering
• Field: Mechanical, Aeronautical, and Aerospace Engineering
• Nationality: Egyptian

Summary of Decision

• Initial Decision: Denied
• Appeal Outcome: Remanded

Evidentiary Criteria Analysis

Criteria Met:

1. Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
   • Description: The Petitioner authored several research papers published in mechanical, aeronautical, and aerospace engineering journals.
2. Participation as a Judge:
   • Description: The Petitioner participated as a judge of doctoral dissertations and performed peer reviews for colleagues.

Criteria Not Met:

1. Membership in Associations:
   • Description: The Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements of their members judged by recognized national or international experts.
2. Display of Work at Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
   • Description: The evidence provided did not establish that the Petitioner’s work was displayed at artistic exhibitions or showcases.
3. Original Scientific Contributions of Major Significance:
   • Description: The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate original contributions of major significance in the field.
4. High Salary in Relation to Others in the Field:
   • Description: The Petitioner did not provide adequate evidence to establish that he commanded a high salary in relation to others in his field.

Key Points from the Decision

Awards and Prizes Won:

• Military Duty Medal:
  • Summary of Findings: The Petitioner received a military duty medal from the President of Egypt in 2002 for his 26 years of service. The Director did not adequately analyze whether this award met the criteria for lesser national or international awards for excellence.

Published Materials About the Petitioner:

• Published Research Papers:
  • Summary of Findings: Several of the Petitioner’s research papers were published in recognized scholarly journals.

Original Contributions of Major Significance:

• Engineering Contributions:
  • Summary of Findings: The Petitioner asserted significant breakthroughs in aerospace guidance and control, design and development of defense systems, and creation of engineering programs. However, the Director did not find this evidence sufficient.

Participation as a Judge:

• Academic and Peer Review Roles:
  • Summary of Findings: The Petitioner’s role as a judge for doctoral dissertations and peer reviews for colleagues was recognized.

Membership in Associations:

• Professional Memberships:
  • Summary of Findings: The Petitioner’s memberships in professional associations were not considered sufficient to meet the criteria.

Leading or Critical Role Performed:

• Leadership Roles:
  • Summary of Findings: The Petitioner held leadership roles in various organizations, including the Egyptian strategic defense center and curriculum development at a Canadian college. The Director did not adequately address this evidence.

Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:

• Professor Salary:
  • Summary of Findings: The Petitioner’s salary as a professor was presented but not deemed sufficient evidence of commanding a high salary.

Supporting Documentation

• List of Documents:
  1. Military duty medal award certificate
  2. Membership certificates from various professional associations
  3. Published research papers and journal articles
  4. Letters of recommendation and peer review confirmations
  5. Documentation of leadership roles and contributions to engineering programs

Conclusion

Final Determination:

• Summary of Final Determination: The decision of the Director is withdrawn, and the case is remanded for further analysis.

Reasoning:

• Summary of Key Reasons for the Decision: The Director did not sufficiently analyze the evidence for two criteria: receiving lesser national or international awards and performing in a leading or critical role for a distinguished organization.

Next Steps:

• Recommendations or Next Steps for the Petitioner: The Director is to issue a new decision that thoroughly evaluates the evidence for the criteria mentioned. The Petitioner should ensure all relevant documentation is clear and comprehensive to meet the evidentiary requirements.

Download the full petition report pdf here