Date of Decision: May 29, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Assistant Professor of Anesthesiology
Field: Medicine
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met
Judging the Work of Others: The Petitioner served as a peer reviewer for journals, satisfying this criterion. The record reflects that the Petitioner reviewed papers for journals.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The Petitioner authored several scholarly articles in professional scientific journals, satisfying this criterion. The record demonstrates that the Petitioner has published 11 articles in professional scientific journals.
Criteria Not Met
Published Material in Major Media: The Petitioner provided an article from the Albany Times Union. However, the article was not primarily about the Petitioner, and the Petitioner did not establish that the Albany Times Union is a major media publication. The article focused on the Petitioner’s medical device company, and the Petitioner did not show the significance of the circulation figure or how such data reflects status as a major medium.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Petitioner claimed several original contributions, supported by citations to his work, publications in top-ranked journals, testimonial letters, and patent applications. However, the evidence provided did not sufficiently demonstrate that his contributions were of major significance. The citations were indicative of some attention from the field but did not rise to the level of major significance required by the criterion. The letters provided praised the Petitioner’s work but lacked specific, detailed information explaining how his contributions have been of major significance.
Leading or Critical Role for Distinguished Organizations: The Petitioner claimed that he played a leading role as a chief resident and anesthesiology representative for the Medical College’s Graduate Medical Education Council (GMEC), and as the anesthesiology lead for Med’s structural heart program. However, the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate that these roles were leading or critical to the organizations’ success, nor did it show that the organizations enjoyed a distinguished reputation.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that published materials about him were in major trade or professional publications or other major media.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate original contributions of major significance in the field. The letters lacked specific details on how the contributions significantly influenced the field.
Participation as a Judge:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner served as a peer reviewer for several scientific journals, satisfying this criterion.
Membership in Associations:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner authored several scholarly articles in reputable professional journals.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that he performed leading or critical roles for organizations with a distinguished reputation.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Supporting Documentation
Award Materials: Provided but did not establish national or international recognition for the individual.
Articles and Publications: Included articles from the Albany Times Union that did not meet the standards for major media coverage or were not primarily about the Petitioner.
Letters from Colleagues and Organizations: Praised the Petitioner’s work but lacked sufficient detail to demonstrate major significance or critical roles.
Salary Documentation: Insufficient for establishing high remuneration.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner met two criteria but did not provide sufficient evidence to meet at least three of the ten criteria. The Petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field. The totality of the evidence did not support a finding of the required acclaim and recognition for the classification sought.
Next Steps: The Petitioner must provide more substantial and specific evidence to meet the criteria for extraordinary ability classification.
