Date of Decision: January 23, 2023
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Biochemist
Field: Biochemistry
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met
- Participation as a Judge of Others’ Work:
The petitioner has participated as a judge of the work of others in the field of biochemistry. - Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner has authored scholarly articles in the field of biochemistry.
Criteria Not Met
- Original Contributions of Major Significance:
While the petitioner has made original scientific contributions, the initial review did not establish these contributions as being of major significance to the field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won
- Summary of Findings:
The petitioner did not demonstrate receipt of a major, internationally recognized award.
Published Materials About the Petitioner
- Summary of Findings:
The petitioner provided mission statements from journals and numerous letters from scientists supporting the significance of his research.
Original Contributions of Major Significance
- Summary of Findings:
The petitioner’s work in protein-based materials and artificial hydrogen production has been published and cited extensively. However, the Director did not fully analyze the impact of these contributions on the field. - Key Quotes or References:
- The endorsement letters detailed the petitioner’s contributions to cancer, diabetes, and migraine research, as well as the development of artificial hydrogen production.
- Collaborative efforts with a pharmaceutical company were not adequately considered in the initial review.
Supporting Documentation
- Numerous letters of endorsement: Provided detailed discussions on the impact of the petitioner’s research.
- Articles and citation analysis: Included references to the petitioner’s work in prominent scientific publications.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Remanded for further review
Reasoning: The Director did not fully address evidence regarding the petitioner’s contributions of major significance. A thorough explanation is necessary for a meaningful appellate review.
Next Steps:
- The Director should request any additional evidence deemed necessary to determine if the petitioner’s contributions are of major significance.
- A new decision should evaluate the totality of the record to determine the petitioner’s sustained national or international acclaim and status as a top individual in the field of biochemistry.
This detailed review highlights the importance of a comprehensive evaluation of evidence in petitions for extraordinary ability classification. The case underscores the necessity for clear and thorough documentation to substantiate claims of major contributions to a field.
