Date of Decision: July 1, 2024
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Biomedical Engineer Researcher
Field: Biomedical Research
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Judging the Work of Others: Evidence demonstrated the petitioner served as a peer reviewer for scientific journals from 2020 to 2022.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance: The petitioner provided evidence of significant scientific accomplishments in biomedical research.
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner authored several scholarly articles published in peer-reviewed journals.
Final Merits Determination:
Despite meeting three regulatory criteria, the petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or recognition as one of the small percentage at the very top of the field.
Key Points from the Decision
Judging the Work of Others:
The petitioner provided documentation of peer review activities; however, the Director found insufficient evidence to demonstrate how the petitioner’s work as a peer reviewer distinguished him from others in similar roles.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
While the petitioner cited patents, research funding, and citation metrics, the evidence lacked corroboration of the petitioner’s contributions having major significance at a national or international level.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner’s publication record demonstrated expertise in the field but did not establish sustained acclaim or extraordinary recognition.
Director’s Evaluation:
The Director evaluated the petitioner’s evidence individually and collectively, ultimately concluding that the record did not demonstrate extraordinary ability as defined under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2).
Supporting Documentation
Peer Review Evidence: Documentation of manuscript review activities.
Scientific Contributions: Evidence included patents, citation history, and expert letters, but lacked sufficient corroboration of major significance.
Scholarly Publications: Articles published in reputable journals demonstrated expertise but not sustained national or international acclaim.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner met three evidentiary criteria but failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim or recognition as one of the small percentage at the very top of their field. The record did not sufficiently demonstrate extraordinary ability in the field of biomedical research.
