Date of Decision: July 29, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Wireless Communications Engineer
Field: Engineering
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
The Petitioner, a wireless communications engineer, seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner, despite satisfying the initial evidentiary requirements, did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or show that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed the appeal upon de novo review.
Criteria Met
Participation as a Judge of the Work of Others: The Petitioner served as a reviewer for technical journals and conferences.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The Petitioner authored several scholarly articles in reputable professional journals.
High Salary or Remuneration: The Petitioner provided evidence of high remuneration for his services relative to others in his field.
Criteria Not Met
Membership in Associations: The Petitioner claimed membership in the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) as a Senior Member. However, the AAO determined that Senior Membership does not necessarily equate to outstanding achievements as judged by recognized national or international experts. The distinction between Senior Member and IEEE Fellow was noted, with Fellow status being more aligned with the regulatory requirements.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Petitioner claimed to have made original contributions of major significance through his work with various technologies. However, the evidence provided did not sufficiently demonstrate the major significance of these contributions. The AAO found the letters praising the Petitioner’s work lacked specific, detailed information on how his contributions significantly impacted the field.
Leading or Critical Role for Distinguished Organizations: The Petitioner claimed leading roles in various projects and organizations. However, the evidence provided, including letters and descriptions of his roles, was insufficient to establish that these organizations had distinguished reputations or that his roles were critical to their success. The AAO noted that participation in significant projects does not automatically equate to leading or critical roles.
Final Merits Determination
The AAO concluded that the Petitioner did not meet the initial evidentiary requirement of at least three of the ten criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The AAO found that the Petitioner did not establish sustained national or international acclaim and did not demonstrate that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field. The totality of the evidence did not support a finding of the required acclaim and recognition for the classification sought.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to meet at least three of the ten criteria. 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. The totality of the evidence did not support a finding of the required acclaim and recognition for the classification sought.
Next Steps: The Petitioner must provide more substantial and specific evidence to meet the criteria for extraordinary ability classification. The Petitioner should ensure that all evidence clearly demonstrates the required levels of recognition and impact in his field.
