Date of Decision: November 24, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Researcher
Field: Computational Imaging
Nationality: [Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Participation as a Judge: The Petitioner participated as a judge of the work of others in the field, meeting the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv).
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The Petitioner authored scholarly articles in professional publications, satisfying the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi).
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Petitioner’s research contributions, including patents and journal articles, demonstrated original contributions of major significance in the field, meeting the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v).
Criteria Not Met:
Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to show that his awards were nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i).
Membership in Associations: The Petitioner’s memberships in associations did not require outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii).
Published Material: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of published material in major media about him, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii).
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of awards that meet the required criterion. The Honorary Helmsman Award was received after the petition was filed and therefore cannot be considered.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The materials submitted did not qualify as professional or major media. The articles focused on the Petitioner’s company rather than his individual achievements.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner’s contributions, while recognized within his company, did not demonstrate major significance in the field of computational imaging.
Participation as a Judge:
The Petitioner participated as a judge for several technical digests, meeting this criterion.
Membership in Associations:
The Petitioner’s memberships did not meet the criterion of requiring outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Petitioner authored several scholarly articles, meeting this criterion.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Not applicable.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not applicable.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
The Petitioner provided various supporting documents, including recommendation letters, articles, patents, and evidence of judging activities. However, these did not collectively establish the required criteria for extraordinary ability.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not demonstrate that he met at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. The evidence provided did not establish his awards as nationally or internationally recognized, his published material as major media, or his contributions as of major significance. The Petitioner did not show that his memberships required outstanding achievements or that his contributions were widely recognized.
Next Steps: The Petitioner may consider submitting additional evidence that clearly establishes the major significance of his contributions or explore other immigration options that may better fit his qualifications.
