Date of Decision: September 17, 2021
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Cardiovascular Diseases Fellow
Field: Cardiovascular Disease and Electrophysiology
Nationality: Indian
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Participation as a Judge in the work of others: The petitioner has peer-reviewed manuscripts for the Journal of General Internal Medicine.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner has authored scholarly articles in professional publications including Annals of Hepatology, Journal of Vector Borne Diseases, and Indian Heart Journal
Criteria Not Met:
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner provided letters from experts, which lacked detailed explanations of how his research findings have been widely accepted and implemented in the field.
The letters did not demonstrate that his work significantly impacted or influenced the field.
The citations to his work, while indicative of interest, did not show major significance in the field.
Leading or Critical Role:
The petitioner did not hold a leading or critical role at the time of the petition filing.
Letters provided did not sufficiently explain how his role was critical or leading within the organization.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won: Not applicable as the petitioner did not receive a major internationally recognized award.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The petitioner’s published research was cited over 60 times.
However, these citations did not sufficiently demonstrate that his work was regarded as a major contribution in the field.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner’s research and clinical skills were praised in letters but did not provide specific evidence of major significance.
The petitioner’s published articles and presentations were acknowledged but did not meet the threshold of “major significance” as required.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner served as a peer reviewer for the Journal of General Internal Medicine.
Membership in Associations:
The petitioner did not contest the director’s finding that he did not meet this criterion.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner authored articles in recognized journals, but this alone was insufficient to establish extraordinary ability.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner’s roles were not demonstrated to be leading or critical to the organizations’ success.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not applicable.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
Letters from Experts: Provided praise but lacked specific evidence of major significance.
Citations: Google Scholar citations were presented but did not meet the required threshold.
Research Articles: Referenced by other researchers but did not demonstrate major significance.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not meet at least three of the ten criteria required for the EB1 Extraordinary Ability classification.
The evidence provided did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of the field.
Next Steps: Consider providing more detailed evidence of the impact and significance of contributions in the field.
Obtain more specific and detailed letters from experts outlining the major significance of the work.
Reassess and strengthen the case before refiling if pursuing the EB1 Extraordinary Ability classification.
