Date of Decision: November 7, 2019
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Cancer Researcher
Field: Oncology Research
Nationality: [Nationality]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Judging the work of others: The petitioner performed peer reviews for several scholarly journals, establishing his role in judging the work of others in his field.
Authorship of scholarly articles: The petitioner co-authored several scholarly articles published between 2010 and 2015, meeting the criterion for authorship.
Criteria Not Met:
Original contributions of major significance: The petitioner failed to demonstrate that his research had major significance in the field. Although his work received some attention, the impact or influence was not proven to be substantial.
Awards and Prizes Won: The petitioner did not provide evidence of winning major internationally recognized awards.
Published Materials About the Petitioner: The submitted media articles were primarily press releases, blogs, or product listings, not recognized scientific media attention.
Membership in Associations: No evidence was provided to demonstrate membership in associations that require outstanding achievements.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration: The petitioner did not provide evidence of receiving high salary or remuneration compared to others in the field.
Key Points from the Decision
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner claimed significant research contributions, including identifying drug-resistant cancer traits and securing a Department of Defense grant. However, the grant’s amount and the competitive nature were questioned, and the research was not proven to be of major significance in the field.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Most submitted articles were institutional press releases or blog posts, not peer-reviewed publications or recognized media. Thus, they did not establish the petitioner’s major significance in oncology research.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner’s co-authored articles met the criterion for scholarly publication. However, this alone did not demonstrate sustained acclaim or major significance.
Judging the Work of Others:
The petitioner’s peer review work for scholarly journals was recognized, fulfilling this criterion.
Supporting Documentation
- Peer Review Evidence: Documentation of peer reviews for several journals.
- Scholarly Articles: Copies of co-authored articles published in various journals.
- Grant Funding Documentation: Evidence of the Department of Defense grant, though its significance was contested.
- Reference Letters: Letters from mentors and collaborators, which supported the petitioner’s contributions but did not conclusively prove major significance.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner did not meet the necessary criteria to demonstrate extraordinary ability.
Reasoning: The evidence provided did not establish the petitioner’s contributions as being of major significance, nor did it prove sustained national or international acclaim. The documentation failed to meet at least three of the regulatory criteria required.
Next Steps: The petitioner may consider providing additional evidence of extraordinary ability or reapplying with a stronger focus on demonstrating the major significance of their contributions and broader acclaim in their field.
