Date of Decision: June 2, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Strategic Port Planner
Field: Maritime and Civil Infrastructure Development
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Leading or Critical Role: The petitioner demonstrated that he had a leading or critical role in his profession, particularly through his involvement in high-profile infrastructure planning projects. (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii))
High Salary: The petitioner showed evidence of a high salary which is indicative of his extraordinary ability. (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix))
Criteria Not Met:
Membership in Associations: The petitioner failed to establish that his membership in the World Association for Waterborne Transport Infrastructure (PIANC) and the Australian Logistics Council (ALC) required outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts. Additionally, his claim of being an Independent Director on the Board of a distinguished company postdates the filing and thus was not considered. (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii))
Original Contributions: The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to show that his contributions were of major significance. The letters of recommendation and additional evidence provided did not specifically demonstrate the major impact of his work in the field. (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v))
Scholarly Articles: The petitioner claimed this criterion for the first time on motion, and the evidence did not demonstrate that his work was published in professional or major trade publications. (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi))
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
No specific awards or prizes were mentioned in the decision.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of published materials about him in major media.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Although the petitioner claimed significant contributions in port planning and infrastructure, the evidence did not convincingly demonstrate that these contributions were of major significance in the field.
Participation as a Judge:
There was no mention of the petitioner’s participation as a judge in his field.
Membership in Associations:
The petitioner’s memberships did not meet the criteria for outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner’s claim regarding scholarly articles was not previously raised, and the submitted evidence did not establish that his work was published in relevant professional media.
Leading or Critical Role:
The petitioner had previously met this criterion by demonstrating his leadership role in infrastructure projects.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable to this petition.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The petitioner met this criterion by showing his high salary indicative of his extraordinary ability.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable to this petition.
Supporting Documentation
The petitioner submitted various letters of recommendation, articles, and documents related to his professional achievements. However, these did not meet the evidentiary criteria required for the EB1 classification.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Denied
Reasoning:
The petitioner failed to meet the necessary three out of ten evidentiary criteria required for the EB1 classification. Although he demonstrated a leading role and high salary, he did not provide sufficient evidence for the other claimed criteria.
Next Steps:
The petitioner should consider gathering more substantial evidence that specifically meets the criteria outlined by USCIS. It may also be beneficial to consult with an immigration attorney to better understand the requirements and strengthen his petition.
