Date of Decision: September 15, 2021
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Clinical Chemist
Field: Clinical and Bioanalytical Chemistry
Nationality: [Nationality not specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner provided evidence of scholarly articles authored by her.
Participation as a Judge: The petitioner demonstrated her participation as a judge of the work of others in her field.
Criteria Not Met:
Membership in Associations: The petitioner failed to prove that her memberships required outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The petitioner did not adequately demonstrate that her contributions had a major significance in her field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won: (Not applicable)
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The petitioner provided scholarly articles she authored, but there was insufficient evidence to show they were of major significance.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner submitted papers and claimed her work was significant, but the evidence did not show a major influence or widespread implementation in the field.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner met the criterion for participation as a judge, showing her involvement in evaluating the work of others in her field.
Membership in Associations:
The petitioner argued her education and post-doctoral training qualified as outstanding achievements, but did not sufficiently prove this for meeting the membership criterion.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner provided evidence of her authored scholarly articles, which was accepted as meeting this criterion.
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
Ph.D. and Post-Doctoral Training Certificates: Provided, but not sufficient to prove outstanding achievements.
Scholarly Articles and Papers: Submitted, but did not prove original contributions of major significance.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The petitioner’s motion to reopen and motion to reconsider were both dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not present new facts sufficient to overturn the prior decision.
The evidence submitted did not meet the regulatory requirements for the criteria claimed.
The petitioner’s arguments did not establish that the previous decisions were based on an incorrect application of law or USCIS policy.
Next Steps: The petitioner may consider gathering more robust evidence to support the criteria not met and potentially refile the petition.
Seeking legal advice to better understand the requirements and how to fulfill them might be beneficial for future submissions.
