Date of Decision: March 4, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Senior Corporate Attorney
Field: Business
Nationality: [Not specified in the document]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Judging:
The petitioner provided evidence of his participation as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner demonstrated authorship of scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications or other major media.
Criteria Not Met:
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner provided evidence of patents and citations but did not sufficiently demonstrate the major significance of these contributions within the field.
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner did not provide evidence of having received nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field.
Membership in Associations:
The petitioner did not present evidence of membership in associations that require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won
Summary of Findings: The petitioner did not submit evidence of major, internationally recognized awards.
Published Materials About the Petitioner
Summary of Findings: Not specifically addressed, as the focus was on original contributions and patents.
Original Contributions of Major Significance
The petitioner did not establish that his contributions were of major significance in the field. The provided evidence (citations, patents) did not demonstrate significant impact or widespread adoption in the field.
Participation as a Judge
The petitioner reviewed papers for journals, which met the criterion for judging.
Membership in Associations
Not specifically addressed in the decision.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles
The petitioner authored scholarly articles, meeting the relevant criterion.
Leading or Critical Role Performed
Not specifically addressed in the decision.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration
Not specifically addressed in the decision.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
Judging: Evidence of the petitioner reviewing papers for journals.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: Evidence of published scholarly articles.
Original Contributions: Citations from Google Scholar and Clarivate Analytics data, patents, and recommendation letters.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal remanded. The petitioner did not meet the required evidentiary criteria to establish eligibility for the EB1 Extraordinary Ability classification.
Reasoning:
The petitioner failed to demonstrate original contributions of major significance and did not satisfy at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. The overall record did not support a finding of sustained national or international acclaim.
Next Steps:
The petitioner may consider gathering additional evidence of major significance and impact in the field and reapplying with a stronger case or exploring other visa categories that might be more suitable based on their qualifications and achievements.
