Date of Decision: October 6, 2016
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Biotechnology Scientist
Field: Biotechnology
Nationality: India
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
1. Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner provided documentation of peer review activities for several journals and editorial positions.
2. Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner authored articles in professional publications, supporting the criterion of scholarly article authorship.
Criteria Not Met:
1. Awards and Prizes:
The petitioner submitted evidence of his employer receiving a national award, but did not demonstrate individual recognition.
2. Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner provided letters of support and examples of his work’s impact, but lacked evidence showing that his contributions were of major significance to the field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner did not demonstrate that he received nationally or internationally recognized awards. The awards provided were institutional recognitions and did not meet the required standard.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The provided materials highlighted contributions but did not show widespread acclaim or major significance in the field.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
While the petitioner had several notable achievements, there was insufficient evidence to show these contributions had a significant impact on the biotechnology field.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner’s role as a peer reviewer and editorial positions were recognized as meeting the criterion.
Membership in Associations:
There was no significant mention or evidence provided regarding membership in associations.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner met the criterion by authoring articles in recognized professional publications.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
There was no substantial evidence provided to support this criterion.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable to the petitioner’s field.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
There was no significant mention or evidence provided regarding high salary or remuneration.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable to the petitioner’s field.
Supporting Documentation
- Peer Review Activities: Documentation of peer review activities for journals and editorial roles.
- Scholarly Articles: Articles authored by the petitioner in professional publications.
- Letters of Support: Letters highlighting the petitioner’s contributions but lacking evidence of major significance.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to meet the criteria for extraordinary ability in the biotechnology field. The evidence presented did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or major contributions to the field.
Next Steps: The petitioner may consider additional evidence or alternative immigration pathways.
