Date of Decision: March 15, 2022
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Anatomist and Professor
Field: Human Anatomy and Medical Science
Nationality: [Not specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Petitioner has authored numerous scholarly articles that have contributed significantly to the field of human anatomy.
Participation as a Judge of the Work of Others:
The Petitioner has served as a judge for various scholarly activities and conferences, demonstrating recognized expertise in the field.
Criteria Not Met:
Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards:
The Petitioner submitted evidence of the “Best Presentation Award” from the Association of Anatomists and the Award for Basic Medicine from the Medical Association. However, the initial evaluation did not adequately consider these awards’ recognition in the field.
Published Material About the Alien:
The Director did not provide a detailed analysis of the published material about the Petitioner in professional or major trade publications, as required.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The evidence submitted, including testimonial letters and various materials, was not specifically addressed in the Director’s decision, leading to insufficient analysis of the Petitioner’s contributions.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The Petitioner received the “Best Presentation Award” and the “Award for Basic Medicine,” both indicating significant recognition in his field. These awards were not fully analyzed in the initial decision.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
There is substantial published material about the Petitioner in major professional publications. This evidence requires thorough review to determine its sufficiency in meeting the evidentiary criterion.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Testimonial letters and various materials were submitted to support the claim of original contributions of major significance. The Director’s decision lacked a specific analysis of this evidence.
Participation as a Judge:
The Petitioner has judged the work of others in his field, showcasing his expertise and recognition.
Membership in Associations:
Evidence of the Petitioner’s membership in professional associations was not specifically discussed in the decision.
Supporting Documentation
- Best Presentation Award: Detailed description and significance in the field.
- Award for Basic Medicine: Evidence and its recognition.
- Published Material: Titles, dates, and authors of the material.
- Testimonial Letters: Supportive statements from peers and experts in the field.
- Judging Participation: Records and details of events where the Petitioner served as a judge.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Remanded for further review and decision.
Reasoning:
The Director’s decision did not provide a comprehensive analysis of the evidence submitted. The Petitioner has demonstrated sufficient evidence to warrant further review of the claimed criteria.
Next Steps:
The case is remanded for a detailed analysis of the evidence submitted under each claimed criterion. The Director should provide a complete evaluation and explanation for each piece of evidence to ensure a fair decision.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
Cite as Matter of G-M-, ID# 19518886
Document: MAR152022_02B2203
