Date of Decision: January 12, 2023
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Bioinformatics Research Scientist
Field: Bioinformatics
Nationality: [Not specified in the document]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Judging the work of others in the same or allied field of specialization: The Petitioner peer-reviewed manuscripts submitted for publication in several scientific journals.
- Authorship of scholarly articles: The Petitioner has published scholarly articles in scientific journals such as Nature Communications and the Journal of the National Academy of Sciences.
Criteria Not Met:
- Original contributions of major significance: The Director concluded that the evidence did not establish that the Petitioner had made original contributions of major significance in her field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won
Summary of findings: Not applicable.
Published Materials About the Petitioner
Summary of findings: The Petitioner’s scholarly articles were published in reputable journals, indicating recognition in her field.
Key quotes or references: “The record supports a determination that the Petitioner has published scholarly articles in scientific journals such as Nature Communications and the Journal of the National Academy of Sciences.”
Original Contributions of Major Significance
Summary of findings: The Director’s decision did not address the evidence submitted with any specificity, resulting in a remand for re-evaluation.
Key quotes or references: “The Director’s discussion of the original contributions criterion is conclusory and does not specifically address the Petitioner’s claims or the evidence submitted in support of the criterion.”
Participation as a Judge
Summary of findings: The Petitioner has peer-reviewed manuscripts submitted for publication in scientific journals.
Key quotes or references: “The record demonstrates that she satisfies the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv).”
Membership in Associations
Summary of findings: Not applicable.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles
Summary of findings: The Petitioner has authored scholarly articles in several high-impact journals.
Key quotes or references: “The record supports a determination that the Petitioner has published scholarly articles in scientific journals such as Nature Communications and the Journal of the National Academy of Sciences.”
Leading or Critical Role Performed
Summary of findings: Not applicable.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases
Summary of findings: Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration
Summary of findings: Not applicable.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts
Summary of findings: Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
- Scholarly Articles: Published in Nature Communications and the Journal of the National Academy of Sciences.
- Peer Reviews: Evidence of peer-reviewing manuscripts for scientific journals.
- Citation Record: Detailed citation record from Google Scholar.
- Support Letters: Letters from colleagues and independent experts detailing contributions in the field.
- Impact Factors and Rankings: Documentation of journal rankings and impact factors.
- Notable Citations: Information demonstrating how her research contributions have impacted the field.
- Governmental Funding: Evidence of governmental entities funding her previous work.
- Detailed Explanation of Contributions: A 13-page letter detailing specific contributions in the field.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The decision was remanded for further review and entry of a new decision.
Reasoning: The Director’s decision contained factual errors and did not provide a sufficient explanation for the denial. The Petitioner demonstrated eligibility under two criteria and required a re-evaluation of the original contributions criterion.
Next Steps: The Director should ensure that the record is complete and re-evaluate the evidence submitted, particularly focusing on the original contributions criterion. If the Petitioner meets at least three criteria, a final merits determination should be conducted to assess sustained national or international acclaim.
