Date of Decision: September 30, 2019
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Research Engineer
Field: Chemical Engineering
Nationality: [Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Petitioner had authored two scholarly articles published in scientific journals at the time of filing the petition, with an additional two articles published subsequently.
Judging the Work of Others:
The Petitioner served as a chair for a symposium, co-chaired sessions at annual meetings, and reviewed student award submissions and papers for the Journal of Membrane Science, as well as a research proposal for a university research board.
Criteria Not Met:
Membership in Associations:
The Petitioner is a member of an association and serves on its executive committee, but the membership requirements are based on background and volunteering experience, not outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner’s work, including a technique developed during his Ph.D. research and related patents, has been influential within specific research groups but has not been shown to have major significance in the overall field of chemical engineering.
Leading or Critical Role:
The Petitioner’s roles in research groups and his current employer were significant within those contexts, but there was no evidence demonstrating a critical impact on the overall operations or reputation of the organizations.
High Salary:
The Petitioner’s salary was compared to entry-level wages for chemical engineers despite holding a Ph.D., and it was found to be only slightly above average for his qualifications and experience level.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The document did not specify any major, internationally recognized awards received by the Petitioner.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
While the Petitioner had published articles, the appeal did not provide evidence of significant media coverage or citations indicating major influence in the field.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner’s research contributions were recognized within his immediate professional circles but lacked broader, documented impact in the field of chemical engineering.
Participation as a Judge:
The Petitioner’s role in judging at conferences and for journals was acknowledged as meeting the criteria.
Membership in Associations:
The Petitioner’s memberships were based on experience rather than outstanding achievements judged by experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Petitioner met this criterion with multiple publications in scientific journals.
Leading or Critical Role:
The Petitioner’s roles were important within his research groups, but there was insufficient evidence to show they were critical to the broader organizations’ success.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The Petitioner’s salary was found to be average when considering his qualifications and experience level, not meeting the criterion for high remuneration.
Supporting Documentation
- Membership Letters: Descriptions of membership qualifications and roles within professional associations.
- Judging Documentation: Evidence of participation as a judge in various professional capacities.
- Research Contributions: Patents, publications, and letters from colleagues detailing the significance of the Petitioner’s research.
- Salary Documentation: W-2 forms and salary comparisons.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not meet the required three criteria for EB-1 classification and failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.
Next Steps: The Petitioner may consider gathering more substantial evidence of significant contributions and higher acclaim in the field or explore other immigration pathways.
