Date of Decision: April 12, 2023
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
- Profession: Cancer Research Scientist
- Field: Cancer Research
- Nationality: Russian
Summary of Decision
- Initial Decision: Denied
- Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Judging (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv)):
- The petitioner demonstrated evidence of acting as a judge of the work of others in the field, which was deemed sufficient.
- Scholarly Articles (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi)):
- The petitioner provided sufficient evidence of scholarly articles in professional journals, meeting the criteria.
Criteria Not Met:
- Membership in Associations (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii)):
- The petitioner claimed membership in the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the Russian Society of Oncologic Urologists (RSOU). However, there was no evidence that these memberships require outstanding achievements judged by national or international experts.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v)):
- Despite evidence of research and findings in oncology, the petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that his contributions were of major significance in the field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won: (Not Applicable)
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
- The petitioner provided evidence of articles referencing his work. However, these did not establish the major impact required for the criteria.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- The petitioner’s research on biomarkers was acknowledged, but it lacked sufficient evidence of being widely implemented or remarkably impacting the field.
Participation as a Judge:
- Evidence was sufficient, as mentioned above.
Membership in Associations:
- Membership in ASCO and RSOU did not meet the criteria for outstanding achievements required by the regulations.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
- The petitioner met the criteria with his publications in professional journals.
Leading or Critical Role Performed: (Not Applicable)
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases: (Not Applicable)
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration: (Not Applicable)
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts: (Not Applicable)
Supporting Documentation
- Membership Proofs:
- Evidence of membership in ASCO and RSOU, including charters and articles, were submitted but did not meet the required standards.
- Scholarly Articles:
- Publications in journals like Oncogenesis and PLOS ONE were provided, demonstrating some level of recognition but not enough to satisfy the major significance criterion.
- Letters of Recommendation:
- Several letters from peers and mentors highlighted the petitioner’s contributions, but these lacked specific examples of significant impact.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
- The petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for the EB1 Extraordinary Ability classification. The evidence provided was insufficient to meet the necessary criteria of outstanding achievements and major contributions to the field.
Next Steps:
- The petitioner may consider gathering more robust evidence of his impact in the field or explore other visa classifications that may better fit his qualifications.
