Date of Decision: January 18, 2019
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Applied Physicist
Field: Applied Physics
Nationality: [Nationality Not Specified]
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 professional publication Applied Physics Letters, reviewing manuscripts in 2016 and 2017.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The Petitioner authored scholarly articles published in professional journals, including Chemistry of Materials and Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology A: Vacuum, Surfaces and Films.
Criteria Not Met:
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that his contributions have been widely accepted or implemented throughout the field. Although his work has added to the general pool of knowledge, the record lacks evidence of widespread commentary and acceptance.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
No major, internationally recognized awards were submitted.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The Petitioner provided documentation on the total number of citations his work has garnered, including printouts from scholar.google.com and Microsoft Academics Author Metrics. However, this evidence was insufficient to confirm contributions of major significance.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Reference letters and other documents showed that the Petitioner’s work added to the knowledge in the field, but did not confirm that his findings have been widely accepted or implemented. Specific impact and influence on the field were not sufficiently demonstrated.
Participation as a Judge:
The Petitioner served as a reviewer for Applied Physics Letters, reviewing manuscripts in 2016 and 2017.
Membership in Associations:
Not applicable or not sufficiently evidenced in the document.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Petitioner authored several scholarly articles in professional journals, but the impact of these articles was not sufficiently demonstrated to be of major significance.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Not applicable or not sufficiently evidenced in the document.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not applicable or not sufficiently evidenced in the document.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
- Employer’s Letter: Describes the Petitioner’s role and contributions in the field of applied physics and materials engineering.
- Reference Letters: Provided by various professors and researchers, discussing the Petitioner’s contributions and their impact.
- Citation Records: Printouts from scholar.google.com and Microsoft Academics Author Metrics, showing citation counts and publication records.
- Publications: Copies of the Petitioner’s articles published in professional journals.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not meet the initial evidence requirements of satisfying at least three criteria and did not demonstrate the required sustained national or international acclaim.
Next Steps: Recommendations for the petitioner include gathering more robust and specific evidence of major contributions and their widespread impact, and possibly reapplying with additional documentation.
