Date of Decision: February 5, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Senior Applied Mechanics Engineer
Field: Applied Mechanics Engineering
Nationality: [Not specified in the document]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Criterion 1: Scholarly Articles
The petitioner authored several scholarly articles in professional publications, which was acknowledged as meeting the criterion for extraordinary ability.
Criteria Not Met:
Criterion 1: Membership in Associations
The petitioner claimed senior membership with the International Association of Computer Science and Information Technology (IACSIT). However, the membership was based solely on having a doctoral degree and did not require outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts. Thus, it did not meet the regulatory criterion.
Criterion 2: Published Material About the Petitioner
The petitioner submitted an article from Simulia Community News about his research. However, the article was about his work rather than about him, which did not satisfy the criterion.
Criterion 3: Participation as a Judge
The petitioner provided an email inviting him to review papers for the 2010 Advances in Materials and Processing Technologies conference. There was no evidence showing that he actually completed the reviews, failing to meet this criterion.
Criterion 4: Original Contributions of Major Significance
The petitioner argued for original contributions but did not fulfill the initial evidentiary requirement of meeting at least three criteria, so this was not further assessed.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won: Not applicable
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The article submitted did not meet the criterion as it was not about the petitioner but about his research work.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner claimed contributions of major significance, but this was not evaluated due to not meeting the required number of initial criteria.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner failed to provide evidence of actual participation in judging other works, only an invitation to do so.
Membership in Associations:
Membership based solely on educational qualifications (doctoral degree) without recognized outstanding achievements judged by experts did not meet the criterion.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner met this criterion by authoring several scholarly articles.
Supporting Documentation
Scholarly Articles: Copies of articles authored by the petitioner.
IACSIT Membership: Letter and screenshots from the IACSIT website.
Simulia Community News Article: Copy of the article and related correspondence.
Emails Regarding Judging: Email invitation for reviewing papers at a conference.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the required criteria for demonstrating extraordinary ability. The evidence provided did not support claims of membership in prestigious associations, published material about the petitioner, or participation as a judge. The overall record did not demonstrate the sustained national or international acclaim necessary for the EB1 classification.
Next Steps:
The petitioner may consider gathering more substantial evidence of extraordinary ability and reapplying or exploring other immigration options that may be more suitable given the evidence available.
