Date of Decision: July 13, 2017
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Biomedical Software Developer
Field: Sciences
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Judging the Work of Others:
The Petitioner had served as a peer reviewer for multiple journals.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Petitioner had published articles.
Criteria Not Met:
Original Scientific Contributions of Major Significance:
The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of original scientific contributions of major significance. The Petitioner claimed his contributions were not reflected through publications or patents but through tools and algorithms developed for various projects. However, the reference letters and documentation provided did not demonstrate an impact at a level consistent with major significance in the field.
Leading or Critical Role:
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not demonstrate a leading or critical role for an organization or establishment with a distinguished reputation. The Petitioner’s roles, while significant, did not meet the criterion of being critical to the organizations involved.
Key Points from the Decision
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Reference letters acknowledged the promising nature of the Petitioner’s tools but did not corroborate his impact in the field at a level consistent with a contribution of major significance.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner’s contributions, although innovative and recognized within his immediate circles, did not reach the threshold of major significance in the wider field.
Participation as a Judge:
The Petitioner had judged the work of others as a peer reviewer, meeting this criterion.
Membership in Associations:
Not specified.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Petitioner had authored several scholarly articles, but the lack of citations or further independent recognition limited their evidentiary value.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The roles performed by the Petitioner were critical to specific projects but did not demonstrate a critical role for the organization as a whole.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not applicable.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
- Reference Letters: Detailed the Petitioner’s work and its importance to specific projects.
- Publications: Articles authored by the Petitioner.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not submit the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The record did not support a finding that the Petitioner established the level of expertise required for the classification sought.
Next Steps: The Petitioner may consider gathering more comprehensive evidence that meets the specified criteria or consult with legal experts to strengthen future petitions.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
