Date of Decision: June 7, 2021
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Researcher
Field: Environmental and Chemical/Petroleum Engineering
Nationality: [Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner has authored numerous scholarly articles published in scientific journals, meeting the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi).
Participation as a Judge: The petitioner has served as a peer reviewer for scientific journals, satisfying the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv).
Criteria Not Met:
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that his contributions have been widely implemented or remarkably influential in the field. While his work was cited and used as a basis for further research, it was not shown to be of major significance.
Key Points from the Decision
Authorship of Scholarly Articles
The petitioner authored numerous scholarly articles in the field of environmental and chemical/petroleum engineering, meeting the criterion for published materials.
Participation as a Judge
The petitioner served as a peer reviewer for scientific journals, meeting the criterion related to judging the work of others.
Original Contributions of Major Significance
The petitioner’s work on an irrigation water management model and improvements to a software product in the oil and gas industry were cited by other researchers. However, the evidence did not demonstrate that these contributions were of major significance or widely implemented in the field.
Supporting Documentation
Scholarly Articles: Copies of articles authored by the petitioner in scientific journals.
Judging: Evidence of the petitioner’s service as a peer reviewer for scientific journals.
Original Contributions: Reference letters, citations, and emails from other researchers acknowledging the petitioner’s work.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to meet at least three of the ten criteria required for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability.
The petitioner demonstrated success and recognition in his field but did not establish the sustained national or international acclaim necessary for the EB1 classification.
Next Steps:
Consider gathering more substantial and relevant evidence to support the criteria not met.
Seek further guidance or legal advice on potential reapplication or other visa classifications that may be more appropriate for the petitioner’s qualifications and achievements.
