Date of Decision: May 27, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Assistant Project Scientist
Field: Biomolecular and Biomaterials Research
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met
Participation as a Judge of the Work of Others: The Petitioner participated in peer review of manuscripts for professional journals such as the Journal of Translational Medicine, Journal of Materials Chemistry B, and Biomaterials Science.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Petitioner made significant contributions in the field, including developing drug-delivery technology for cancer and HIV therapy.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The Petitioner authored several scholarly articles published in professional publications.
Criteria Not Met
Sustained National or International Acclaim: Despite meeting the initial evidentiary requirements, the Petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that she is among the small percentage at the very top of her field. The Petitioner’s achievements, while notable, did not rise to the level of a career of acclaimed work in the field as required for this classification.
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 contest the Director’s finding on this issue, and no additional evidence was provided on appeal.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner’s contributions in developing drug-delivery technology were recognized, but the supporting documentation did not sufficiently corroborate the significance of her contributions to demonstrate sustained acclaim.
Participation as a Judge:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner participated in peer review for several professional 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 published in professional journals.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
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.
Articles and Publications: Provided references in professional publications.
Letters from Colleagues and Organizations: Praised the Petitioner’s work but did not provide sufficient evidence of sustained acclaim or recognition at the very top of her field.
Salary Documentation: Insufficient for establishing high remuneration.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner met three criteria but did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that she is among the small percentage at the very top of her field. The Petitioner’s achievements, while notable, did not rise to the level of a career of acclaimed work in the field as required for this classification. The record does 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.
