Date of Decision: August 25, 2015
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1B Outstanding Researcher
Petitioner Information
Profession: Servo Control Engineer
Field: Nanomanufacturing Technology
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Participation as a Judge: The beneficiary provided sufficient evidence of peer review duties for multiple journals and conferences, verifying his involvement in the evaluation of the work of others.
- Original Research Contributions: The beneficiary’s research contributions were supported by reference letters, favorably cited articles, and patent applications, indicating a recognized impact in his field.
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The beneficiary authored several scholarly articles published in internationally circulated journals within his academic field.
Criteria Not Met:
- Published Material About the Beneficiary: The petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the published material in professional publications was indicative of the beneficiary’s international recognition as outstanding.
Key Points from the Decision
Original Contributions of Major Significance
The beneficiary’s research contributions, particularly in developing methods for overcoming limiting factors in fault-tolerant control, were recognized by peers and led to new guidelines in the field. However, the evidence was not deemed sufficient to establish international recognition as outstanding.
Participation as a Judge
The beneficiary served as a peer reviewer for eleven journals and four conferences, with duties including the review of almost 20 articles. Despite this, the nature of the judging experience was considered routine in the field and not indicative of international recognition.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles
The beneficiary’s scholarly articles were published in prestigious journals with international circulation. However, the citation rates, though above average, were not found to be sufficient evidence of international recognition as outstanding.
Supporting Documentation
- Letters of Intent: Multiple letters from journal editors verifying the beneficiary’s peer review duties.
- Reference Letters: Letters from various academics and professionals recognizing the beneficiary’s contributions to the field.
- Patent Applications: Evidence of three patent applications showcasing the beneficiary’s innovative work in nanomanufacturing technology.
- Scholarly Articles: Copies of several articles authored by the beneficiary and published in international journals.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary is recognized internationally as an outstanding researcher or professor.
Reasoning: While the beneficiary met several criteria, the evidence provided did not convincingly demonstrate the level of international recognition required for EB-1 classification.
Next Steps: The petitioner may consider submitting a motion to reconsider or reopen the decision within the prescribed time frame.
