Date of Decision: October 18, 2022
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Biopsychosocial Specialist
Field: Obstetrics/Gynecology and Biopsychosocial Evaluation
Nationality: Venezuelan
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner has authored several scholarly articles in the field of obstetrics/gynecology and biopsychosocial evaluation. This was recognized by the USCIS as fulfilling one of the criteria.
Participation as a Judge of the Work of Others:
The petitioner has served as a judge for various medical evaluations and research work. This was acknowledged as meeting one of the criteria.
Criteria Not Met:
Membership in Associations that Require Outstanding Achievements:
The petitioner claimed membership in several professional associations, including the Venezuelan Association for the Advancement of Science and the Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology of Venezuela. However, the requirements for membership were not shown to be sufficiently restrictive to meet the criteria.
Published Material About the Petitioner:
The petitioner provided evidence of published material in minor publications and a television program. However, the materials were not sufficiently focused on the petitioner’s work, and the publications did not meet the standard for professional or major media.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner’s contributions, such as the biopsychosocial evaluation model, were not shown to have significant impact beyond local or institutional levels. Letters supporting this claim did not provide adequate evidence of major significance in the field.
Leading or Critical Role for Distinguished Organizations:
The petitioner’s roles within medical institutions in Venezuela were not demonstrated to be leading or critical within distinguished organizations. The petitioner did not provide evidence that the departments he worked in had a distinguished reputation.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner did not present any evidence of winning major, nationally, or internationally recognized awards or prizes.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The materials provided did not sufficiently cover the petitioner’s work or demonstrate significant recognition in major media.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The contributions made by the petitioner were localized and did not show field-wide significance or adoption.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner served as a judge for medical students’ work, which was acknowledged but did not imply the petitioner’s work was of extraordinary acclaim.
Membership in Associations:
The associations mentioned did not have membership requirements that involved outstanding achievements, as judged by recognized national or international experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
This criterion was satisfied through the petitioner’s scholarly publications in relevant medical fields.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner’s roles were not sufficiently proven to be leading or critical in distinguished organizations.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable in this case.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not applicable in this case.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable in this case.
Supporting Documentation
- Letters of Recommendation:
Letters from colleagues and supervisors, praising the petitioner’s contributions and innovations in the medical field. - Published Articles:
Copies of scholarly articles authored by the petitioner. - Membership Certificates:
Certificates from various professional associations. - Photographs and Media Appearances:
Evidence of television program appearances and other media features. - Professional Certifications:
Certifications in the health care field, including medical assistant, surgical assistant, professional midwife, and medical sonographer.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal Dismissed
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not meet the necessary criteria to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim. While the petitioner showed some significant contributions and participation in the medical field, these were not sufficient to qualify for the EB-1 extraordinary ability classification.
Next Steps:
The petitioner may consider gathering more substantial evidence of extraordinary ability or explore other visa options. Continued professional achievements and wider recognition in the field could strengthen future petitions.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
Cite as Matter of G-M-, ID# 22678700
Document: OCT182022_01B2203
