Date of Decision: July 25, 2024
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Cancer Biology Researcher
Field: Biotechnology and Cancer Research
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Withdrawn and remanded for further determination
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
- The petitioner authored multiple scholarly articles, three of which have been cited over 100 times each, demonstrating recognition within the academic field.
- Judging the Work of Others:
- Evidence showed that the petitioner participated in peer reviewing manuscripts for scholarly journals, meeting the criterion for judging the work of others.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- The petitioner’s research contributed to cancer biology, as supported by letters and documentation of over 1,100 citations of his work.
Key Points from the Decision
Judging the Work of Others:
The petitioner submitted email correspondence confirming his role in peer-reviewing manuscripts. This evidence met USCIS standards for documenting participation as a judge of others’ work.
Original Contributions:
- Letters from experts recognized the petitioner’s work as significant to cancer research.
- Google Scholar records showed an h-index of 17, indicating influence within the field.
- While citation percentile analysis contained some ambiguity, the AAO determined that, on balance, the petitioner’s contributions satisfied this criterion.
Final Merits Determination:
The AAO remanded the case for the Director to assess whether the petitioner’s achievements demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and place him among the small percentage at the very top of his field.
Supporting Documentation
Scholarly Publications: Articles with citation records and percentile rankings.
Judging Activities: Emails confirming manuscript reviews.
Original Contributions: Letters and citation records supporting the significance of the petitioner’s work.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The Director’s decision was withdrawn, and the matter was remanded for a final merits determination.
Reasoning:
The petitioner met three regulatory criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The Director must now evaluate whether the petitioner demonstrates extraordinary ability and sustained acclaim in cancer biology research.
