Date of Decision: June 1, 2015
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Scientist
Field: Solar Energy Research
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Participation as a Judge: The petitioner established that the beneficiary served as a judge in the same or allied field.
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner provided evidence of the beneficiary’s authorship of scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications.
Criteria Not Met:
- Published Material About the Petitioner: The petitioner did not provide published material about the beneficiary relating to his work.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance: The evidence provided did not demonstrate the major significance of the beneficiary’s contributions.
- Leading or Critical Role Performed: The petitioner did not establish the beneficiary’s leading or critical role for organizations or establishments with a distinguished reputation.
Key Points from the Decision
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The petitioner failed to provide any published material about the beneficiary relating to his work in professional or major trade publications.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence showing that the beneficiary’s work had significant impact or influence on the field of solar energy research. Letters from experts praised the potential of the beneficiary’s work but did not provide concrete examples of major significance.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner demonstrated that the beneficiary participated as a judge of the work of others in the same or allied field.
Membership in Associations:
No evidence was provided regarding the beneficiary’s membership in associations.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner provided evidence that the beneficiary authored scholarly articles in the field of solar energy research, published in professional or major trade publications.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
No evidence was provided regarding the beneficiary’s high salary or remuneration in relation to others in the field.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
- Letters from Experts: Several letters from industry experts praised the beneficiary’s work but did not provide evidence of its major significance.
- Patents: Documentation of two patents co-created by the beneficiary, though the evidence did not show their impact on the field.
- Scholarly Articles: Copies of articles authored by the beneficiary, which were published in professional journals.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner failed to meet the initial evidence requirements of at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. The evidence provided did not demonstrate that the beneficiary’s contributions were of major significance in the field of solar energy research.
Next Steps: The petitioner may file a motion to reconsider or reopen the proceeding using Form I-290B.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
