Date of Decision: February 1, 2023
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Biomedical Engineering Expert
Field: Engineering, Data Science, Internal Medicine, and Therapy Intervention Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Published Material: The Petitioner has met the criterion of published material about their work in major trade publications or other major media.
- Judging: The Petitioner has participated as a judge of the work of others in the field.
- Scholarly Articles: The Petitioner has authored scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications.
- Leading or Critical Role: The Petitioner has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments with a distinguished reputation.
- High Salary: The Petitioner has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field.
Criteria Not Met:
None specifically listed as not met; however, the overall claim of sustained national or international acclaim was not substantiated to the Director’s satisfaction.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The Petitioner did not claim or establish receipt of a major, internationally recognized award.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Evidence was presented from Microsoft Academic indicating that the Petitioner’s citation statistics place him among the top one percent of over 34 million authors in various fields, including Engineering, Computer Science, and Medicine.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner has developed artificial pancreas technology resulting in four patents and four journal articles, indicating significant contributions to the field.
Participation as a Judge:
The Petitioner has judged the work of peers, demonstrating recognition of their expertise.
Membership in Associations:
Not specified in the document.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Petitioner has authored scholarly articles that have been published in respected journals, indicating a high level of professional recognition.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The Petitioner has played a leading or critical role in significant biomedical engineering projects, such as the development of continuous glucose monitors and artificial pancreas pumps.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The Petitioner has demonstrated that they command a high salary in relation to others in the field.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
- Microsoft Academic Citation Statistics: Evidence placing the Petitioner among the top one percent of authors in multiple fields.
- Clarivate Analytics Ranking: Recognition of the Petitioner’s published papers and their impact.
- Patents and Journal Articles: Documentation of the Petitioner’s contributions to artificial pancreas technology.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The Director’s decision was withdrawn and the case was remanded for a new decision.
Reasoning: The Director did not adequately consider the totality of the evidence. Specific deficiencies in addressing the evidence were noted, including the failure to consider citation statistics and other rankings properly.
Next Steps: The Director is to request any additional evidence needed and to conduct a comprehensive final merits determination consistent with the criteria for EB1 classification.
This decision emphasizes the importance of a thorough and balanced evaluation of all presented evidence in determining eligibility for extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner should ensure all relevant accomplishments and recognitions are clearly documented and substantiated in any further submissions.
