Date of Decision: February 26, 2021
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Chemistry Researcher
Field: Chemistry
Nationality: [Not specified in the provided text]
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 was recognized for his role as a peer reviewer in various scientific journals, indicating his participation in judging the work of others.
Authorship of scholarly articles: The Petitioner authored multiple scholarly articles published in peer-reviewed journals, showcasing his contributions to the field.
Criteria Not Met:
Original contributions of major significance: Although the Petitioner provided detailed descriptions of his research work and claimed several patents, the record did not establish the major significance of these contributions within the field of chemistry. The evidence provided lacked independent corroboration of the impact and significance of his work.
Other Criteria: Not applicable as only three criteria were initially claimed by the Petitioner, and he met two out of those three.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Not applicable
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Not applicable
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner claimed several original contributions and patents, but the evidence failed to demonstrate their major significance in the field. The letters of support were found to have similar wording and formatting, raising questions about their independent origin.
Key quotes or references: “The record does not establish the major significance of those contributions.”
Participation as a Judge:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner’s role as a peer reviewer was acknowledged, meeting the criterion.
Key quotes or references: “The Petitioner met the criteria for participation as a judge of the work of others.”
Membership in Associations:
Not applicable
Authorship of scholarly articles:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner authored several scholarly articles which were published in reputable journals.
Key quotes or references: “The Petitioner has satisfied the criteria numbered (vi) for authorship of scholarly articles.”
Leading or critical role performed:
Not applicable
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not applicable
Commercial successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable
Supporting Documentation
Peer review activity: Recognized as a peer reviewer for various scientific journals.
Patents: Claimed patents but lacked independent evidence to establish their major significance.
Publications and citations: Published work with citations, but not demonstrated to be significantly higher compared to others in the same field.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not meet the required initial evidence criteria and failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim. The evidence did not support the level of recognition and influence required for the EB1 Extraordinary Ability classification.
Next Steps
Recommendations: The Petitioner may consider gathering more robust and independent evidence of the significance and impact of his contributions, securing more credible letters of support, and reapplying with a stronger case.
