Date of Decision: March 5, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Testing and Commissioning Engineer
Field: Engineering
Nationality: [Not specified in the document]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Criterion 1: Judging the Work of Others
The petitioner did not meet this criterion.
Criterion 2: Authorship of Scholarly Articles
The petitioner did not meet this criterion.
Criteria Not Met:
Criterion 1: Receipt of Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards
The petitioner was named “Most Outstanding Employee of the Year” for 2008 by his then-employer. However, this award was not recognized as a nationally or internationally recognized prize for excellence in the field of endeavor.
Criterion 2: Membership in Associations Requiring Outstanding Achievements
The petitioner claimed membership in the Philippine Society of Mechanical Engineers (PSME), but this membership did not require outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts.
Criterion 3: Original Contributions of Major Significance
The petitioner claimed original contributions in the field of engineering, but the reference letters provided did not identify specific contributions or explain their major significance.
Criterion 4: Leading or Critical Role for Distinguished Organizations
The petitioner’s previous employers confirmed his employment but did not demonstrate that he performed in a leading or critical role for organizations with a distinguished reputation.
Criterion 5: High Salary or Remuneration
The petitioner provided a confirmation letter of his salary, but there was no comparative wage data to establish that his remuneration was significantly high relative to others in the same field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner’s award was not recognized as nationally or internationally significant.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Not applicable in this case.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of original contributions that had a major significance in the field of engineering.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner did not provide evidence of participation as a judge in his field.
Membership in Associations:
The petitioner’s membership in PSME did not meet the required standards for outstanding achievements.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner did not provide evidence of scholarly articles.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner did not demonstrate that he held a leading or critical role in distinguished organizations.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable in this case.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient comparative data to establish high salary or remuneration.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable in this case.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Reference: Letters from colleagues and associates detailing the petitioner’s contributions and roles.
Salary Documentation: Confirmation letter of the petitioner’s salary from his supervisor.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to meet at least three of the required criteria for demonstrating extraordinary ability. While the petitioner demonstrated that he received an internal company award and held a membership in a professional association, these did not meet the criteria for national or international recognition. Additionally, the petitioner did not provide evidence of original contributions, leading roles, or high salary compared to others in his field. The petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field.
Next Steps:
The petitioner may consider gathering more substantial evidence of extraordinary ability, focusing on contributions with demonstrated major significance, awards with national or international recognition, and other achievements that demonstrate standing at the top of the field. Exploring other immigration options that may be more suitable given the evidence available is also recommended.
