Date of Decision: August 11, 2020
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Researcher
Field: Mechanical Engineering
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Participation as a Judge: The petitioner reviewed articles for journals published by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) and served as an associate editor for the International Journal of Engines.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner co-authored four papers published in scientific conference proceedings.
Criteria Not Met:
Original Contributions of Major Significance: While the petitioner’s research and patents were original, they did not demonstrate a major impact or widespread implementation in the field of mechanical engineering.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Not applicable, as no specific awards or prizes were discussed.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Not applicable, as there were no mentions of published materials about the petitioner.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner’s research focused on using specific techniques to address flow separation in low-pressure turbine blades. Letters from collaborators and peers recognized the quality of his work, but they did not demonstrate that his contributions had a major impact on the field. His work in designing industrial components led to patents and commercial products, but this did not show significant influence beyond his employer.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner successfully demonstrated his role in reviewing and judging the work of others through his editorial positions and review activities for ASME journals.
Membership in Associations:
Not applicable, as no membership in associations was discussed.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner provided evidence of co-authoring four scholarly articles published in conference proceedings.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Not applicable, as no specific leading or critical roles were highlighted.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable, as the petitioner’s field does not involve artistic exhibitions or showcases.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not applicable, as no evidence of high salary or remuneration was discussed.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable, as the petitioner’s field does not involve commercial successes in the performing arts.
Supporting Documentation
Reference Letters: Provided letters from peers and collaborators recognizing the petitioner’s research and contributions. However, these letters did not demonstrate a major impact or widespread implementation in the field.
Patents: Evidence of three patents granted for the design of industrial components. While these patents were commercialized, they did not show significant influence beyond the petitioner’s employer.
Conference Proceedings: Evidence of co-authored papers published in scientific conference proceedings.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not meet the initial evidentiary criteria and failed to demonstrate that his contributions had a major impact on the field of mechanical engineering. The evidence provided did not establish the required sustained national or international acclaim or recognition in the field.
Next Steps: The petitioner should consider providing more comprehensive evidence of his contributions’ impact and significance in the field, focusing on demonstrating how his work has been widely implemented or has remarkably influenced the field of mechanical engineering.
