Date of Decision: August 25, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Researcher
Field: Civil Engineering
Nationality: [Not Provided in Document]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Participation as a Judge: The petitioner reviewed papers for journals such as Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering and other journals.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner authored seven articles published in scientific journals and presented a paper at a scientific conference.
Criteria Not Met:
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The petitioner provided evidence of contributions to the development of software tools for the simulation and analysis of the effects of earthquakes and tsunamis on structures. However, the documentation did not demonstrate that these contributions had a significant impact on the field of civil 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 and development work on the OpenSees framework and software, specifically the addition of modules to simulate tsunami effects on structures and the creation of an interpreter for the Python programming language, were acknowledged. However, the petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to show that these contributions had significantly impacted the field. The evidence of site visits, posts, and emails directed towards the framework and software did not establish who was accessing the software and for what purpose.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner successfully demonstrated his role in reviewing and judging the work of others through his peer review activities for scientific journals.
Membership in Associations:
Not applicable, as no membership in associations was discussed.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner provided evidence of authoring scholarly articles published in professional journals, meeting this criterion.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Not applicable, as the petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to support this claim and it was not evaluated due to failure to meet the initial three criteria.
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 professionals and colleagues recognizing the petitioner’s research and contributions. However, these letters were insufficient to establish the petitioner’s eligibility under the claimed criteria.
Emails and Conference Programs: Included evidence of inquiries about the petitioner’s software and its use in conferences and courses, but this evidence did not sufficiently establish the impact of his work.
Published Articles: Included evidence of scholarly articles published in scientific journals.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not meet the initial evidentiary criteria and failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or recognition in his field. The evidence provided was found to be insufficient to establish his eligibility for the EB1 classification.
Next Steps: The petitioner may consider gathering more comprehensive and corroborative evidence to support his claims, focusing on independent recognition and demonstrating how his work has had a significant impact on his field.
