Date of Decision: March 4, 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:
The petitioner served as a peer reviewer of manuscripts for a journal.
The petitioner authored scholarly articles in professional publications.
Criteria Not Met:
The petitioner failed to demonstrate that his contributions were of major significance. Although he presented citation data and letters supporting his work’s impact, the evidence did not show that his research had a significant influence on the field.
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to show that he commands a high salary or remuneration compared to others in his field. The wage data provided was not specific to senior scientists in chemistry.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Not applicable.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Not applicable.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner argued that his work, which included published articles and patents, was of major significance. However, the USCIS found that the petitioner did not sufficiently prove the substantial impact or implementation of his work in the broader field of chemistry.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner served as a peer reviewer for a journal, which was recognized under the criteria met.
Membership in Associations:
Not applicable.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner authored scholarly articles, which was recognized under the criteria met.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Not applicable.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The petitioner’s salary as a “Senior Scientist 1 Chemistry” was provided, but it did not demonstrate a significantly high remuneration relative to peers in the field.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
- Letters from Recommenders:
- Provided insight into the petitioner’s work and its impact. However, these letters were found to lack specific, detailed information explaining the significance of his contributions.
- Citation Data:
- Included the petitioner’s citation counts and comparisons. This evidence was deemed insufficient to establish major significance in the field.
- Patents and Commercialization:
- Documentation of patents and commercialization efforts was presented but did not adequately demonstrate major contributions to the field.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not meet the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or documentation that satisfies at least three of the ten criteria. The totality of the evidence failed to show sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of the field.
Next Steps:
The petitioner may consider gathering more substantial evidence of their contributions and impact in the field or explore other visa classifications that might better fit their qualifications.
