Date of Decision: April 11, 2016
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Assistant Professor
Field: Sciences
Nationality: [Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Judge of Others’ Work: The Petitioner demonstrated that they have judged the work of others, fulfilling the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv).
- Authored Scholarly Articles: The Petitioner provided evidence of having authored scholarly articles, meeting the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi).
Criteria Not Met:
- Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Petitioner’s evidence did not demonstrate contributions of major significance in the field as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v).
- Leading or Critical Role: The Petitioner did not meet the leading or critical role criterion as set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii).
- Published Material About the Petitioner: The evidence provided did not meet the published material criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii).
Key Points from the Decision
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence that their work had significantly impacted the field. General contributions inherent to the occupation were not considered sufficient.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The Petitioner did not meet the published material criterion as the submitted evidence did not qualify as material specifically about the Petitioner.
Supporting Documentation
- Judging Work of Others: Documentation showing participation in reviewing the work of peers.
- Scholarly Articles: Copies of published scholarly articles authored by the Petitioner.
- Reference Letters: Letters from colleagues and professionals in the field discussing the Petitioner’s work and its impact.
- Research Grants and Citations: Evidence of research grants awarded and citations of the Petitioner’s work.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The motion to reopen was denied.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not meet the burden of proof to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought under section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Next Steps: The Petitioner may consider gathering more substantial evidence demonstrating the significant impact of their work and reapplying if new, relevant information becomes available.
