Date of Decision: May 28, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Wireless Engineer
Field: Electrical Engineering
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Participation as a Judge of the Work of Others: The petitioner participated as a judge of the work of others, which was acknowledged by the Director.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The petitioner demonstrated original contributions of major significance in the field. This includes the development of battery-free devices powered by solar cells and television and cellular phone signals, which represents a significant advancement in making smart devices more efficient and useful.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner authored scholarly articles that have been heavily cited, indicating the significance and impact of the research contributions. One article, in particular, was cited nearly 500 times, placing it within the top 0.01% of engineering articles published in 2013.
Criteria Not Met:
Major, Internationally Recognized Award: The petitioner did not demonstrate having received a major, internationally recognized award.
Documentation of Sustained National or International Acclaim: The petitioner did not sufficiently establish sustained national or international acclaim necessary to demonstrate extraordinary ability. While the petitioner’s work has been cited and has drawn interest from a variety of observers, including mainstream media, this did not equate to the level of sustained acclaim required.
Adoption of Technology: Although the petitioner’s work was innovative, the technology appeared to be at a preliminary stage. There was no substantial evidence of its adoption beyond prototypes and feasibility studies.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won: None documented as a major, internationally recognized award.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The petitioner’s work was covered by mainstream media such as Fortune, Forbes, and the Telegraph, which recognized the significance of the innovations. However, this coverage did not suffice to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner’s contributions included significant advancements in battery-free devices and low-power communication mediums. These contributions were recognized through heavy citations and mainstream media coverage.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner’s role in judging the work of others was acknowledged as meeting one of the required criteria.
Membership in Associations: Not documented.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner authored several scholarly articles, with some receiving a significant number of citations. This was recognized as a major contribution.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration: Not documented.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts: Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
Letters from Peers and Advisors: Including statements from the petitioner’s former Ph.D. advisor, confirming the significance of the petitioner’s contributions.
Google Scholar Printouts: Showing high citation counts for several of the petitioner’s articles.
Mainstream Media Articles: Coverage in reputable publications acknowledging the petitioner’s work.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Denied
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.
The evidence presented, while indicating significant contributions, did not establish that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of the field.
The recognition of the petitioner’s work did not rise to the level of sustained acclaim required for the EB1 Extraordinary Ability classification.
Next Steps:
The petitioner may consider providing additional evidence of sustained national or international acclaim.
It might be beneficial to demonstrate the practical adoption and implementation of the petitioner’s innovations beyond the prototype stage.
Seeking advice from an immigration attorney to strengthen the case with additional qualifying evidence may be helpful.
