Date of Decision: May 21, 2024
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Advanced Computing Researcher
Field: Advanced Computing
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Judging the Work of Others: The petitioner provided evidence of serving as a peer reviewer for journals and conferences.
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles: Evidence demonstrated that the petitioner authored articles published in highly regarded journals and conferences.
Criteria Not Met:
- Original Contributions of Major Significance: The petitioner’s evidence, including citation metrics, patents, and letters from experts, failed to demonstrate contributions of major significance in the field.
Key Points from the Decision
Judging the Work of Others:
The petitioner successfully demonstrated participation as a reviewer for academic journals and conferences, satisfying this criterion.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner’s scholarly articles were published in respected journals; however, the evidence did not establish that these works were of major significance to the field.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Despite submitting patents, citation data, and expert letters, the evidence was deemed insufficient to demonstrate that the petitioner’s contributions were recognized as majorly significant. The Director found the expert letters vague and lacking specific details on the impact of the petitioner’s work.
Supporting Documentation
Peer Review Activities: Documentation of participation as a reviewer for academic publications.
Scholarly Publications: Articles published in reputable journals and conferences.
Patents: Evidence of patents submitted but lacked proof of significant industrial or commercial impact.
Citation Metrics: Provided but insufficient to establish contributions as majorly significant.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner met two of the required criteria but failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or recognition for contributions of major significance. The appeal was dismissed as the petitioner did not satisfy the regulatory requirements for EB-1 classification.
