Date of Decision: February 28, 2025
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1A Extraordinary Ability
Field of Expertise: Electronics Packaging & Semiconductor Thermal Management
Petitioner Information
Profession: Senior Staff Engineer
Field: Electronics Packaging & Semiconductor Thermal Management
Nationality: India
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied – Director found petitioner satisfied two criteria (judging and authorship) but not three.
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed – AAO affirmed denial, concluding petitioner failed to prove original contributions of major significance.
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Judging the Work of Others (iv): Petitioner participated as a peer reviewer for professional journals in the field.
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles (vi): Petitioner authored or co-authored 14 peer-reviewed publications since 2019.
Criteria Not Met:
- Original Contributions of Major Significance (v): Although petitioner developed simulation toolkits addressing delamination issues and worked on thermal management for data centers, USCIS found the evidence showed employer-specific value but not field-wide impact.
- Other Criteria: No evidence of major international awards or qualifying recognition under other criteria.
Key Points from the Decision
- Petitioner had about 170 citations at the time of filing, which USCIS compared against top researchers in the field with 11,000+ citations. The citation count was not found significant relative to peers.
- Expert opinion letters praised his contributions in packaging reliability and thermal management but lacked specific evidence of adoption, implementation, or field-wide influence.
- USCIS stressed that expert letters must explain how contributions advanced the field broadly, not just within an employer or isolated projects.
- The AAO affirmed that while petitioner’s research was original, it did not rise to the level of “major significance” in the semiconductor field.
- As fewer than three criteria were satisfied, no final merits determination was conducted.
Supporting Documentation
- Letters of Intent: From employers and academic collaborators, praising research but focusing mainly on internal impact.
- Business Plan: Not applicable.
- Advisory Letter: Expert letters were given weight but did not establish field-wide impact.
- Other Supporting Documentation: Citation printouts, publication records, and research summaries were reviewed but found insufficient.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal dismissed.
Reasoning: Petitioner satisfied two criteria (judging and authorship) but failed to establish original contributions of major significance or other qualifying evidence. The record did not demonstrate extraordinary ability, sustained acclaim, or standing among the small percentage at the very top of the semiconductor packaging and thermal management field.
