Date of Decision: January 12, 2015
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Biomedical Researcher
Field: Biomedical Sciences
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Approved
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Evidence of the alien’s participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specification for which classification is sought.
The petitioner served as a peer reviewer for multiple journals, including a large number of articles, and was appointed to the Editorial Board of the journal.
Evidence of the alien’s original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field.
The petitioner’s research contributions in MRI for microvascular decompression and traumatic brain injury have been recognized as significant in the field. Letters of support from experts and numerous independent citations to the petitioner’s work corroborate these contributions.
Evidence of the alien’s authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade publications or other major media.
The petitioner authored several articles in distinguished professional journals, which have garnered a significant number of citations.
Criteria Not Met:
No additional criteria were specified as not met in the decision.
Key Points from the Decision
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Summary of findings: The petitioner’s work on MRI scans for microvascular decompression and traumatic brain injury has been extensively cited and built upon by other researchers, demonstrating its major significance in the field.
Key quotes or references: “The petitioner’s work offers a great method to observe the position correlation of nerves and vessels in a physiological state, and is of great significance in guiding surgery.”
Participation as a Judge:
Summary of findings: The petitioner reviewed a substantial number of articles for multiple journals and served on the Editorial Board of a journal, indicating significant peer recognition in the field.
Key quotes or references: “The evidence supports the director’s finding that the petitioner meets this regulatory criterion.”
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Summary of findings: The petitioner’s articles have been published in professional journals and have received an unusually large number of citations, highlighting their impact and recognition in the field.
Key quotes or references: “The content of the citations reveal that other researchers have not only referenced the petitioner’s work, but built on it.”
Supporting Documentation
- Letters of support from experts in the field.
- Documentation of peer reviews and editorial board membership.
- Copies of scholarly articles authored by the petitioner.
- Independent citations to the petitioner’s work.
- Media reports on the petitioner’s research findings.
Conclusion
Final Determination:
Summary of the final determination: The appeal is sustained, and the petition is approved.
Reasoning:
Summary of key reasons for the decision: The petitioner demonstrated extraordinary ability through original contributions of major significance, participation as a judge, and authorship of scholarly articles. The evidence shows sustained national acclaim and recognition in the field of biomedical sciences.
Next Steps:
Recommendations or next steps for the petitioner: The petitioner is advised to continue their work in the field of biomedical sciences in the United States, as their entry will substantially benefit the country.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
