Date of Decision: July 21, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Biophysics and Biomedicine
Field: Biophysics and Biomedicine
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Not Met
Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards: The Petitioner claimed eligibility for this criterion based on venture capital funding received by his company. However, the Petitioner did not establish that the funding was awarded to him personally, nor did he demonstrate that it was recognized as a national or international prize for excellence in his field.
Published Material in Major Media: The Petitioner submitted articles from various websites, but the evidence did not demonstrate that these sources qualify as major media. Additionally, the articles were about the Petitioner’s company and technology rather than focusing on the Petitioner himself.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Petitioner claimed original contributions based on his patents, research, and the founding of a nonprofit organization. However, the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate the major significance of these contributions. The letters provided praised the Petitioner’s work but lacked specific, detailed information on how his contributions significantly impacted the field.
Participation as a Judge: The Petitioner provided evidence of his participation as a judge in several events. However, the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate that this role involved judging the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization.
Leading or Critical Role for Distinguished Organizations: The Petitioner claimed to have held leading roles in various organizations. However, the evidence provided, including letters and certificates, was insufficient to establish that these organizations had distinguished reputations or that the Petitioner’s roles were critical to their success.
High Salary or Remuneration: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that he commanded a high salary or remuneration relative to others in his field. The salary data provided did not sufficiently demonstrate that his earnings were significantly high compared to other professionals in his field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not establish that he personally received nationally or internationally recognized awards. The provided evidence did not demonstrate the awards’ recognition at the required level.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that published materials about him were in major trade or professional publications or other major media. The articles provided did not focus primarily on the Petitioner.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate original contributions of major significance in the field. The letters lacked specific details on the impact and significance of his contributions.
Participation as a Judge:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner provided letters attesting to his judging experience, but the letters contained inconsistencies and were not corroborated by additional evidence.
Membership in Associations:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that memberships required outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that his scholarly articles were of major significance.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that he performed leading or critical roles for organizations with a distinguished reputation.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not establish that he commanded a high salary or remuneration relative to others in his field.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to meet at least three of the ten criteria. The Petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field. The totality of the evidence did not support a finding of the required acclaim and recognition for the classification sought.
Next Steps: The Petitioner must provide more substantial and specific evidence to meet the criteria for extraordinary ability classification. The Petitioner should ensure that all evidence clearly demonstrates the required levels of recognition and impact in his field.
