Date of Decision: NOV. 22, 2022
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Biologist
Field: I Biology
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Participation as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization: The Petitioner has participated in peer review for scholarly articles in scientific journals within his field, which satisfies this criterion.
Authorship of scholarly articles in the field in major trade publications or other major media: The Petitioner has authored numerous scholarly articles widely cited in the field, demonstrating recognition of his contributions.
Criteria Not Met:
Original contributions of major significance: Initially, the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that his contributions were of major significance. However, on appeal, the evidence provided showed significant citation of his work and detailed reference letters from other professors, establishing that his contributions were indeed of major significance.
Key Points from the Decision
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- The Petitioner’s work on the rapid evolution of aphid gene clusters and their ability to colonize diverse plant species has been cited extensively, including a specific article cited 119 times.
- Reference letters from other professors highlighted how the Petitioner’s research has influenced their own work, indicating a significant impact in the field.
- The Petitioner’s research continues to be cited, reflecting ongoing reliance on his contributions.
Participation as a Judge:
- The Petitioner’s experience in peer review of scholarly articles is acknowledged, although it alone does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.
Supporting Documentation
- Scholarly Articles: Hundreds of citations in Google Scholar, indicating the Petitioner’s significant impact on the field.
- Reference Letters: Detailed letters from other professors discussing the influence and guidance provided by the Petitioner’s work.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The Director’s decision is withdrawn. The case is remanded for a final merits determination.
Reasoning: The Petitioner has provided sufficient evidence to overcome the initial grounds for denial, particularly regarding the criterion of original contributions of major significance.
Next Steps: The Director must now perform a final merits determination, evaluating the totality of the evidence to establish the Petitioner’s extraordinary ability in the field.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
Cite as Matter of G-M-, ID# 22643167
Document: NOV222022_01B2203
