Date of Decision: May 3, 2018
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Astrophysicist
Field: Astrophysics
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Judging the Work of Others at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv):
The petitioner served as a reviewer for a workshop and three different scientific journals on eight occasions, demonstrating her role as a judge of the work of others in her field.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi):
The petitioner has published more than 20 articles in peer-reviewed, scientific journals, meeting the criteria for authorship of scholarly articles.
Criteria Not Met:
Original Contributions at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v):
The petitioner claimed her work on a software package used for modeling data from X-ray satellites and her study of radio relics from galaxy clusters as original contributions. However, the evidence provided showed only limited use of the software and did not establish its major significance in the field. Letters from researchers indicated her work advanced understanding in the field, but did not demonstrate a significant impact or displacement of traditional theories.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Not applicable based on the provided evidence.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Not applicable based on the provided evidence.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner’s work on software for modeling X-ray data and her study of radio relics were recognized, but the evidence did not establish a major significance in the field of astrophysics.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner served as a reviewer for various workshops and scientific journals, meeting the criteria for judging the work of others.
Membership in Associations:
Not discussed in the decision.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner published over 20 articles in peer-reviewed journals, meeting the criteria for authorship of scholarly articles.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Not applicable based on the provided evidence.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not applicable based on the provided evidence.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
The petitioner provided several pieces of evidence, including:
Evidence of serving as a reviewer for workshops and scientific journals.
More than 20 peer-reviewed articles authored by the petitioner.
Letters from researchers discussing her work on software and radio relics.
Emails from researchers seeking guidance on her software.
Conclusion
Final Determination:
The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not submit the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Although the petitioner met two criteria, the evidence did not demonstrate a major contribution in the field of astrophysics. Consequently, the petitioner failed to establish the level of expertise required for the classification sought.
Next Steps:
The petitioner may consider consulting with new legal counsel to explore any further options for appeal or other immigration benefits for which she may be eligible.
