Date of Decision: February 1, 2023
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
- Profession: Research Scientist
- Field: Computational and Mathematical Tools for Simulating Gas and Fluid Flow Dynamics
- Nationality: [Nationality Not Provided]
Summary of Decision
- Initial Decision: Denied
- Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Participation as a Judge of the Work of Others:
- The petitioner has peer-reviewed manuscripts for professional journals and conferences in his field.
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
- The petitioner has authored scholarly articles in professional publications such as Aerosol Science and Technology, Computers & Fluids, and Physics of Fluids.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- The petitioner’s work has significantly advanced the state-of-the-art capabilities of NASA’s simulation tools and has been incorporated into various NASA projects, including assessments for spacecraft flight and rocket exhaust impingement analyses.
Key Points from the Decision
- Awards and Prizes Won:
- Not applicable in this case.
- Published Materials About the Petitioner:
- Various articles and letters from experts in the field have highlighted the petitioner’s contributions and their impact.
- Example: A 2019 article in Physics of Fluids discusses the petitioner’s significant advancements in DSMC methods.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- Detailed letters from experts, such as the former chief of the Applied Aerosciences and Computational Fluid Dynamics Branch at NASA’s Johnson Space Center, emphasized the petitioner’s innovative computational models and their adoption by NASA and other U.S. government agencies.
- Participation as a Judge:
- The petitioner has participated as a peer reviewer for several professional journals and conferences in his field.
- Membership in Associations:
- Not specifically mentioned in the document.
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
- The petitioner has authored multiple scholarly articles in significant professional journals.
- Leading or Critical Role Performed:
- Not specifically mentioned in the document.
- Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
- Not applicable in this case.
- Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
- Not specifically mentioned in the document.
- Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
- Not applicable in this case.
Supporting Documentation
- Letters from Experts:
- Provided detailed support for the petitioner’s contributions and their impact.
- Highlighted the use of the petitioner’s computational models by NASA and other agencies.
- Published Articles:
- Highlighted the petitioner’s advancements in the field, specifically in DSMC methods.
- Professional Journals:
- Contain articles authored by the petitioner.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The matter is remanded for a final merits determination.
Reasoning:
- The petitioner has met the initial evidence requirements by satisfying three of the ten regulatory criteria.
- The Director’s decision did not properly weigh the evidence supporting the petitioner’s original contributions of major significance.
- The new decision will include an analysis of whether the petitioner has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is among the small percentage at the very top of his field.
Next Steps:
- The Director must conduct a final merits determination, considering the totality of the petitioner’s accomplishments and evidence.
- The petitioner should ensure that all relevant evidence and expert testimonials are well-documented to support the final review.
