Date of Decision: APR. 3, 2019
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Anesthesiologist
Field: Anesthesiology
Nationality: Indian
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Participation as a Judge: The petitioner served as a reviewer for the Journal of Anaesthesiology Clinical Pharmacology and the Journal of Obstetric Anaesthesia and Critical Care from 2006 to 2017.
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner has authored scholarly articles published in professional journals such as the Journal of Anaesthesiology Clinical Pharmacology and the Indian Journal of Urology.
Criteria Not Met:
- Original Contributions of Major Significance: The evidence did not demonstrate that the petitioner’s contributions have had a major significance in the field of anesthesiology. His research did not show a significant impact or influence in the field.
- Leading or Critical Role: The evidence did not establish that the petitioner’s employer, a subsidiary known for intraoperative monitoring, has a distinguished reputation as required.
Key Points from the Decision
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- The petitioner’s research was recognized in some reputable journals and received citations; however, these were not sufficient to establish contributions of major significance.
Participation as a Judge:
- Documentation confirmed his role as a reviewer for significant journals in the field of anesthesiology, satisfying this criterion.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
- Evidence of the petitioner’s publications in peer-reviewed journals met the criterion for authorship of scholarly articles.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
- The petitioner performed critical roles at his workplace, but the organization did not meet the distinguished reputation requirement to satisfy the criterion.
Supporting Documentation
- Reviewer roles in journals.
- Published scholarly articles.
- Evidence of citations and recognition in the field.
- Letters and testimonials from peers and professional entities.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The petitioner’s appeal is dismissed as he did not meet the required number of evidentiary criteria for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability.
Reasoning:
- The appeal failed to demonstrate that the petitioner’s contributions were of major significance in the field of anesthesiology or that his role was critical for an organization with a distinguished reputation.
Next Steps: - It is recommended for the petitioner to gather more substantial evidence of impact and recognition in the field or seek alternative visa classifications.
