Date of Decision: May 18, 2021
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Chemical Engineer
Field: Development of ‘green’ organic compounds
Nationality: [Not specified in the document]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Participation as a judge of the work of others: The petitioner has participated in evaluating submissions to symposia and reviewing the work of candidates for graduate degrees.
Authorship of scholarly articles: The petitioner has authored scholarly articles, which is a routine expectation in many academic disciplines.
Original contributions of major significance: The petitioner demonstrated contributions in simplified processes that significantly improved efficiency and product purity.
Published material about the individual in professional or major media: The petitioner did not contest the Director’s conclusion regarding this criterion, which is considered abandoned.
Key Points from the Decision
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner’s work in developing simplified processes has significantly improved efficiency and purity in products. This has been recognized as having major significance in the field.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner’s activities in judging included evaluating submissions to symposia and reviewing candidates for graduate degrees. However, some judging activities were deemed routine and not reflective of sustained acclaim.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner’s publication of scholarly articles was noted, but this alone does not signify extraordinary ability as it is common in academic fields.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Recommendation: Several letters from colleagues and experts in the field supported the petitioner’s contributions and recognition. However, many of these individuals had close ties to the petitioner, and some letters had issues that diminished their evidentiary weight.
Google Scholar Citations: The petitioner had a citation count of 157 at the time of filing, which increased to 178 by the time of the appeal. This was considered impressive for a researcher of his age but not sufficient to establish extraordinary ability.
Awards and Nominations: The petitioner’s thesis was nominated for the Best Thesis of the Year 2016 in Chemical Engineering, but no corroborating evidence was provided.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal Dismissed
Reasoning: The petitioner did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or demonstrate that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field. Issues with the credibility of some evidence further weakened the case.
Next Steps: The petitioner may consider gathering more robust and independent evidence of his acclaim and reapplying if he can address the deficiencies noted in this decision.
