Date of Decision: April 23, 2020
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Chemist
Field: Chemistry
Nationality: Not specified
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 served as a judge of the work of others in the field of chemistry.
Authorship of scholarly articles: The petitioner authored scholarly articles in the field, which met the necessary criteria.
Criteria Not Met
Original contributions of major significance: While the petitioner demonstrated original contributions in chemistry, the evidence did not establish that these contributions had a major significance in the field.
Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments: The petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that his role in his company had a distinguished reputation in the field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won: Not applicable
Published Materials About the Petitioner: While the petitioner had published articles that received citations, the evidence did not demonstrate a significant impact or widespread recognition in the field.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The letters and evidence provided described the petitioner’s research and contributions but did not establish their major significance in the field of chemistry.
Participation as a Judge: Confirmed, but not sufficient alone to meet the EB1 criteria.
Membership in Associations: Not applicable
Authorship of scholarly articles: Confirmed, but this alone was not sufficient to demonstrate extraordinary ability.
Leading or critical role performed: The petitioner’s role was not sufficiently demonstrated to be critical for distinguished organizations.
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 colleagues and supervisors
Detailed descriptions of research and contributions
Evidence of scholarly articles and citations
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that his contributions had major significance or that his role in his organization was critical. The evidence provided did not establish that the petitioner had achieved sustained national or international acclaim.
Next Steps: The petitioner may consider gathering more substantial evidence of the impact and recognition of their contributions in the field before reapplying.
