Date of Decision: DEC 20, 2018
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Researcher
Field: Environmental Engineering
Nationality: [Not provided in the document]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Approved
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Participation as a Judge: The Petitioner reviewed manuscripts for several journals, meeting the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv).
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Petitioner developed methods of purifying water and received 11 patents granted by China’s state intellectual property office as utility patents. Her contributions have been utilized by companies in China, resulting in significant cost reductions and improvements in water quality, fulfilling the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v).
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The Petitioner authored numerous scholarly articles that have been published in prominent journals, meeting the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi).
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Findings: The Petitioner won second place science and technology awards in 2013 and 2016, presented by the governor of her province in China. These awards, while significant, were part of the overall assessment of her acclaim.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Findings: The Petitioner presented at international conferences and was invited to give presentations in multiple countries, contributing to her recognition in the field.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Findings: The Petitioner’s research in water purification has been implemented by several companies, demonstrating its major significance. Her patents and developments have led to improvements in water quality and cost reductions.
Participation as a Judge:
Findings: The Petitioner’s consistent history of completing a substantial number of review requests for highly rated journals demonstrated her participation as a judge of the work of others.
Membership in Associations:
Findings: Not applicable in this case.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Findings: The Petitioner authored numerous scholarly articles published in professional journals, fulfilling this criterion.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Findings: Not applicable in this case.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Findings: Not applicable in this case.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Findings: Not applicable in this case.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Findings: Not applicable in this case.
Supporting Documentation
Articles and Reviews: Various articles and reviews about the Petitioner’s research.
Recommendation Letters: Letters from colleagues and experts supporting the significance and impact of the Petitioner’s research contributions.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal Sustained
Reasoning:
The Petitioner demonstrated that she met at least three of the ten criteria for extraordinary ability. The evidence showed her sustained national and international acclaim and that her achievements have been recognized through extensive documentation. The totality of the evidence established that the Petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of her field.
Next Steps:
The Petitioner is now classified as an individual of extraordinary ability. She can proceed with her plans to enter the United States to continue her work in environmental engineering, which will substantially benefit the United States.
