Date of Decision: JAN. 18, 2019
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Chemist
Field: Sciences
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Judging: The Petitioner served as a peer reviewer of manuscripts for journals.
Scholarly Articles: The Petitioner authored scholarly articles in professional publications.
Criteria Not Met:
Original Contributions: The Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that his contributions were of major significance in the field. The citations of his work, though numerous, were not considered significant enough in comparison to leading scientists in the field. The petitioner’s evidence did not show that his work has been widely implemented or remarkably impacted the field.
Commercial Entities: The Petitioner provided evidence of licensing agreements for his research but did not establish how this qualifies as a contribution of major significance rather than potential impacts.
Patents: While the Petitioner is credited as an inventor on a patent, he did not demonstrate how it has greatly impacted or influenced the field.
Funding: The Petitioner received funding for his research but did not show that this reflects major significance.
Media Coverage: The Petitioner presented media coverage of his findings but did not demonstrate widespread coverage and significant impact.
Recommendation Letters: Letters of recommendation praised the Petitioner but did not provide specific examples of contributions considered of major significance.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not submit evidence of receiving a major, internationally recognized award.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Summary of findings: The media coverage provided by the Petitioner did not establish his contributions as majorly significant.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Summary of findings: The evidence did not support the Petitioner’s claim of original contributions of major significance in the field.
Participation as a Judge:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner met this criterion through his role as a peer reviewer.
Membership in Associations:
Summary of findings: Not applicable.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner met this criterion through the publication of scholarly articles.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Summary of findings: Not applicable.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Summary of findings: Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Summary of findings: Not applicable.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Summary of findings: Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
- Judging Evidence: Documentation of peer review activities.
- Scholarly Articles: Copies of published articles and citation records.
- Original Contributions: Letters of recommendation, licensing agreements, and patents, none of which sufficiently demonstrated major significance.
- Funding Evidence: Grant documents, which did not show contributions of major significance.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Denied
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not meet the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or at least three of the ten criteria. The overall evidence did not demonstrate that the Petitioner has achieved the sustained national or international acclaim required for EB-1 classification.
Next Steps: The Petitioner may seek to gather more substantial evidence to support claims of extraordinary ability and reapply or consider other immigration options.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
