Date of Decision: February 26, 2021
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Senior SAP Planning Specialist
Field: Biopharmaceutical Manufacturing
Nationality: [Not specified in the provided text]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments: The Beneficiary held a significant role as a Senior SAP Planning Specialist.
Criteria Not Met:
Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards: The Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary received nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in his field. The awards mentioned were given to the organization and not directly to the Beneficiary.
Membership in associations that require outstanding achievements: The Beneficiary’s membership in the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) was based on professional experience rather than outstanding achievements judged by national or international experts.
Participation as a judge of the work of others: The Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary participated as a judge in the field. The evidence provided only showed participation in a forum, not as a judge.
High salary or other significantly high remuneration: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to show that the Beneficiary’s salary was high relative to others in his field. The comparison was made with a different job category, which was not appropriate.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Summary of findings: The Beneficiary was associated with awards given to his organization, but these were not directly awarded to him, nor were they shown to be recognized at a national or international level for individual excellence.
Key quotes or references: “The evidence submitted by the Petitioner does not show that the Beneficiary received the awards as claimed.”
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Not applicable.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Not applicable.
Participation as a Judge:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner’s claim that the Beneficiary judged the work of others was not supported by the evidence provided.
Key quotes or references: “The Petitioner did not demonstrate how the evidence shows that the Beneficiary participated as a judge of the work of others.”
Membership in Associations:
Summary of findings: The Beneficiary’s membership in ASME was based on experience, not outstanding achievements.
Key quotes or references: “The Petitioner did not establish that ASME’s member requirement of professional experience rises to the level of outstanding achievements.”
Authorship of scholarly articles:
Not applicable.
Leading or critical role performed:
Summary of findings: The Beneficiary held a significant role as a Senior SAP Planning Specialist, which was recognized by the Director.
Key quotes or references: “The Beneficiary’s role was recognized as significant, fulfilling this criterion.”
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to show that the Beneficiary’s salary was high relative to others in his field.
Key quotes or references: “The Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary commanded a high salary in relation to other SAP consultants.”
Commercial successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
Awards Documentation: Evidence of organizational awards, but not individual recognition.
Membership Documentation: ASME membership based on professional experience.
Judging Activities: Participation in a forum, not as a judge.
Income Documentation: Inadequate comparison of salary with appropriate job category.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary met the required three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The evidence provided did not support the level of recognition and influence required for the EB1 Extraordinary Ability classification.
Next Steps
Recommendations: The Petitioner may consider gathering more robust and independent evidence of the Beneficiary’s sustained impact and significance within the field, securing credible letters of support, and reapplying with a stronger case.
