Date of Decision: March 20, 2019
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1B (Outstanding Professor or Researcher)
Petitioner Information
Profession: Software Engineer
Field: Robotics
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The Beneficiary has published work in scientific journals and presented at conferences.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Beneficiary has made original contributions to the field of robotics, evidenced by his publications and patents.
- Participation as a Judge: The Beneficiary served as a peer reviewer for respected journals in the field.
Criteria Not Met:
- Published Materials About the Petitioner: The citations to the Beneficiary’s work were not considered published materials about his work, as they did not directly address his contributions but rather referenced his work among others.
- Evidence of International Recognition: The evidence provided did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary’s contributions were recognized internationally as outstanding.
Key Points from the Decision
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The Beneficiary’s articles were published in journals with high impact factors, but there was no evidence that these publications alone established him as outstanding internationally.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: While the Beneficiary’s work has led to patents and potential cost-saving technologies for his employer, the evidence did not show that these contributions were recognized as outstanding by the international community.
Participation as a Judge: The Beneficiary’s role as a peer reviewer for journals like IEEE Transactions on Robotics was acknowledged. However, the large number of reviewers in the same position did not distinguish the Beneficiary as outstanding.
Supporting Documentation
- Letters from Experts: Provided context on the Beneficiary’s role in various projects but lacked evidence of widespread recognition.
- Patent Documentation: Included patents and applications related to robotics; however, these did not prove international recognition.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed because the evidence, although demonstrating that the Beneficiary met the basic criteria, failed to establish international recognition as an outstanding researcher in robotics.
Reasoning: The Petitioner’s evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate that the Beneficiary’s work was recognized internationally as outstanding, a crucial requirement for the EB-1B classification.
Next Steps: It is recommended that the Petitioner strengthen evidence of the Beneficiary’s international recognition, possibly through more robust documentation of the impact and reception of his work in the global robotics community.
