Date of Decision: October 15, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Staff Engineer
Field: Semiconductor and System Solutions
Nationality: [Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Judging: The Beneficiary served as a peer reviewer for the Applied Power Electronics Conference (APEC), meeting the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv).
Leading or Critical Role: The Beneficiary held critical roles within the petitioner’s corporate group and other distinguished organizations, satisfying the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii).
Criteria Not Met:
Membership in Associations: The Beneficiary’s memberships in associations did not require outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii).
Published Material: The Petitioner submitted two newspaper articles about the Beneficiary, but the publications did not meet the requirements of being major media and lacked necessary information about the author, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii).
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Petitioner’s evidence, including recommendation letters and internal documents, did not establish that the Beneficiary’s contributions were of major significance in the field, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v).
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The Beneficiary authored several application notes and internal documents, but the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate these as scholarly articles of major significance, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi).
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
No evidence provided.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The Petitioner’s submissions did not meet the criterion for professional or major media.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Beneficiary’s contributions, while significant to his employer, did not demonstrate major significance in the field.
Participation as a Judge:
The Beneficiary participated as a judge for several technical digests, meeting this criterion.
Membership in Associations:
The Beneficiary’s memberships did not meet the criterion of requiring outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Beneficiary authored several application notes, but the evidence did not establish these as scholarly articles of major significance.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The Beneficiary held critical roles within the petitioner’s corporate group and other distinguished organizations, meeting this criterion.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not applicable.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
The Petitioner provided various supporting documents, including recommendation letters, application notes, and internal documents. However, these did not collectively establish the required criteria for extraordinary ability.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The Beneficiary did not meet at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. The evidence provided did not establish his memberships in associations requiring outstanding achievements, his published material as major media, or his contributions as of major significance. The Petitioner did not demonstrate his work was of major significance in the field or that his authored application notes were of major significance.
Next Steps: The Petitioner may consider submitting additional evidence that clearly establishes the major significance of their contributions or explore other immigration options that may better fit their qualifications.
