Date of Decision: October 5, 2020
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Clinical Chemist
Field: Clinical Chemistry
Nationality: [Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Judging: The Petitioner served as a judge of the work of others in her field, meeting the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv).
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The Petitioner authored scholarly articles, satisfying the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi).
Criteria Not Met:
Membership in Associations: The Petitioner’s memberships in professional associations did not meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) as they were based on educational and experience thresholds rather than outstanding achievements. The new evidence submitted did not demonstrate that obtaining her degree or completing post-doctoral training were considered outstanding achievements by recognized national or international experts.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The reference letters and additional evidence provided did not establish that the Petitioner’s work had been widely implemented or had a significant impact on the field of clinical chemistry as required under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v).
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
No evidence provided.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
No evidence provided.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner’s contributions, while recognized, did not demonstrate major significance in the field. Citation data and reference letters were insufficient to establish a major impact.
Participation as a Judge:
The Petitioner participated as a judge for several scientific journals, meeting this criterion.
Membership in Associations:
The Petitioner’s memberships did not meet the criterion of requiring outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Petitioner authored numerous scholarly articles, meeting this criterion.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
No evidence provided.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
No evidence provided.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
The Petitioner provided various supporting documents, including reference letters, citation metrics, and documentation of her memberships. However, these did not collectively establish the required criteria for extraordinary ability.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The motions to reopen and reconsider were dismissed.
Reasoning: The evidence provided did not demonstrate that the Petitioner met the required evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. The Petitioner did not show that her memberships in associations required outstanding achievements or that her contributions were of major significance.
Next Steps: The Petitioner may consider submitting additional evidence that clearly establishes the major significance of their contributions or explore other immigration options that may better fit their qualifications.
