Date of Decision: March 15, 2021
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Agricultural Data Scientist
Field: Agricultural Meteorology and Agronomy
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Beneficiary authored multiple papers published in scientific journals such as Earth Interactions, Climate Risk Management, and Geophysical Research Letters.
Participation as a Judge:
The Beneficiary participated as a judge for scientific journals including Agronomy, Sustainability, and the Journal of the Meteorological Society of Japan.
Criteria Not Met:
Published Material About the Petitioner:
The articles submitted were about the research rather than the Beneficiary herself, and were not published in qualifying media.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
While the Beneficiary’s work was original and added value, the evidence did not support that it was of major significance in the field.
Leading or Critical Role:
Insufficient evidence was provided to demonstrate that the Beneficiary played a critical role in the Petitioner’s organization.
High Salary or Remuneration:
The Beneficiary’s salary, though above average, was not high relative to top-level scientists in her field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Not applicable.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The articles provided were focused on the research projects rather than on the Beneficiary’s individual contributions.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Beneficiary contributed to the development of the L and O models, which were used by other researchers. However, the contributions did not demonstrate a major significance in the field as required.
Participation as a Judge:
The Beneficiary served as a reviewer for several scientific journals, meeting this criterion.
Membership in Associations:
Not mentioned in the provided document.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Beneficiary’s scholarly articles were published in well-regarded scientific journals.
Leading or Critical Role:
The evidence did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary’s role was critical to the success of her organization on a company-wide scale.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The Beneficiary’s salary was above average but did not qualify as high relative to others in her field.
Commercial successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
Reference Letters:
Provided by various experts in the field, detailing the Beneficiary’s contributions.
Scientific Publications:
Copies of the Beneficiary’s published research papers.
Evidence of Judging:
Emails from scientific journals confirming the Beneficiary’s participation as a reviewer.
Salary Information:
Paystubs and salary data from government websites.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal Dismissed
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not meet the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria. Additionally, the totality of the evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that the Beneficiary is among the small percentage at the very top of her field.
Next Steps:
Consider gathering more comprehensive and compelling evidence for any future petitions, particularly focusing on demonstrating major significance and critical roles within the field.
