Date of Decision: JAN. 14, 2016
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Chemist
Field: Sciences
Nationality:
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Documentation of the alien’s participation as a judge: Met through evidence of peer-review activities for scholarly articles.
- Authorship of scholarly articles: Met, with evidence of two scholarly articles published in respected journals.
Criteria Not Met:
- Documentation of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards: Not met; abandoned on appeal.
- Membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements: Not met; abandoned on appeal.
- Original contributions of major significance: Not met; evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate impact or recognition in the field.
Key Points from the Decision
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
- The petitioner has authored two scholarly articles, though the citation impact is limited, suggesting minimal recognition in the field.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- Contributions cited include providing comments on federal regulations and developing guidelines. However, the direct impact of these contributions on the field is not adequately demonstrated by the evidence.
Participation as a Judge:
- Recognized through peer review activities for scholarly journals, fulfilling the criteria for participation as a judge of the work of others in the field.
Authorship of scholarly articles:
- Met through documentation showing authorship of two articles in respected journals.
Supporting Documentation
- Legal briefs and additional exhibits submitted on appeal.
- Documentation of peer review activities and scholarly articles authored.
- Letters of support and acknowledgments from field experts.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed due to failure to meet the required number of evidentiary criteria and demonstrate the necessary level of expertise and recognition in the field.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not adequately demonstrate original contributions of major significance or meet the required number of evidentiary criteria.
Next Steps: No further appeal was indicated in the decision.
