Date of Decision: September 6, 2022
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Chemist and Manufacturer of Dietary Supplements
Field: Chemistry and Natural Products
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner published six scholarly articles between 1979 and 1985, which have been cited between 2 and 17 times each.
Criteria Not Met:
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- The petitioner submitted documentation of patents and research but did not establish that his contributions had major significance in the field.
- Letters of support from colleagues did not demonstrate widespread recognition of his work.
- Claims of ongoing research and future impact were not sufficient to demonstrate current major significance.
High Remuneration for Services:
- The petitioner’s income was not convincingly demonstrated to be high in comparison to others in the field, particularly due to the lack of direct, corroborated salary data and comparison.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
- Summary of findings: No major, internationally recognized awards were documented.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
- Summary of findings: Limited citations of the petitioner’s articles, primarily dated and with no recent significant impact.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- Summary of findings: Petitioner’s patents and research contributions did not show evidence of major significance in the field.
Participation as a Judge:
- Summary of findings: Not applicable.
Membership in Associations:
- Summary of findings: Not applicable.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
- Summary of findings: Six articles published, but citations were low and outdated.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
- Summary of findings: Not demonstrated.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
- Summary of findings: Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
- Summary of findings: Insufficient evidence to compare petitioner’s salary to others in the field.
Commercial successes in the Performing Arts:
- Summary of findings: Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
- Scholarly Articles: Six articles published between 1979 and 1985.
- Patents: Patents filed in India, with limited documentation on their impact or commercial success.
- Letters of Support: Letters from colleagues and business partners, lacking sufficient evidence of field-wide recognition.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not meet the required evidentiary criteria to demonstrate extraordinary ability. His contributions, while notable, did not show major significance or sustained national or international acclaim.
Next Steps: The petitioner may consider strengthening his documentation of contributions and impact in the field before reapplying.
