Date of Decision: January 8, 2025
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Business and Social Psychology Researcher
Field: Sciences (Business and Social Psychology)
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met
- Published Scholarly Articles (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi)): The Director acknowledged that the petitioner authored and coauthored articles published in major journals, which satisfied the scholarly authorship criterion.
- Evidence of Display of Work (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv)): The Director determined that the record sufficiently demonstrated that some of the petitioner’s research work had been publicly disseminated.
Criteria Not Met
- Original Contributions of Major Significance (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v)): While the petitioner’s work was published and cited, the evidence did not show how these contributions had major significance in the field. Citation numbers alone were not persuasive without context, and recommendation letters were deemed too general to demonstrate significance.
- Other Claimed Criteria (8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(iii), (vii)-(x)): The petitioner did not assert or provide evidence for these additional criteria on appeal, effectively waiving them.
Key Points from the Decision
- Publication Alone Insufficient: Publication in prestigious journals does not automatically prove contributions of major significance.
- Citation Records Questioned: Citation numbers, including OpenAlex and Clarivate Analytics data, were deemed unreliable due to broad categorization, internal inconsistencies, and disclaimers.
- Recommendation Letters Too General: Support letters referenced the petitioner’s influence but lacked specific evidence demonstrating major significance to the field.
- Threshold Not Reached: Although two criteria were satisfied, the petitioner failed to meet the minimum three required under the regulations.
Final Merits Determination
The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding that the petitioner had not shown he met at least three criteria. Without this threshold, the case could not proceed to a final merits determination.
Supporting Documentation
- Authorship Evidence: 23 published research articles (2017–2023) with 224 total citations.
- Citation Data: Records from Clarivate Analytics and OpenAlex, but with methodological flaws.
- Recommendation Letters: General support from academics without detailed evidence of significance.
- Other Evidence: Not asserted on appeal.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not establish eligibility, as evidence failed to demonstrate at least three criteria. His research, while published and cited, was not shown to be of major significance in the field.
