Date of Decision: June 15, 2018
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Clinical Investigator
Field: Education
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Scholarly Articles: The Petitioner met the criterion for scholarly articles under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). This was the only criterion acknowledged as fulfilled based on the initial and subsequent evidence provided.
Criteria Not Met:
Awards: The Petitioner claimed to meet the awards criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), but failed to provide sufficient new evidence to support this claim on motion.
Membership in Associations: Although the Petitioner provided new documentation regarding membership in a professional association, the evidence did not demonstrate that outstanding achievements are a requirement for membership as per 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii).
Published Materials About the Petitioner: The Petitioner did not provide new, sufficient evidence to meet this criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii).
Participation as a Judge: The Petitioner claimed to have participated as a judge of the work of others in the field, but did not submit new evidence to meet this criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv).
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Petitioner asserted contributions of major significance in their field but failed to provide new supporting evidence on motion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v).
Display of Work: The Petitioner did not submit new evidence for the display of their work in artistic exhibitions or showcases under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii).
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The Petitioner claimed awards but failed to meet the evidentiary standards required under the regulatory criteria. There was no new evidence provided on motion to overturn the initial decision.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The evidence related to published materials about the Petitioner did not meet the criterion’s requirements, and no new evidence was submitted to alter this finding.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner’s claims of significant original contributions were not supported by sufficient new evidence.
Participation as a Judge:
The Petitioner did not meet the criterion for participation as a judge of the work of others due to the lack of new evidence.
Membership in Associations:
The new documentation provided for membership in a professional association did not demonstrate the required outstanding achievements for eligibility.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Petitioner successfully met the scholarly articles criterion, with new evidence submitted resolving concerns related to the authorship of an article on monokines.
Supporting Documentation
The Petitioner provided various supporting documents, including bylaws of a professional association, previously submitted articles, and other evidentiary materials. However, the new evidence was insufficient to meet the required criteria for EB1 classification.
Conclusion
Final Determination:
The motion to reconsider is denied because the Petitioner has not established that the previous decision was based on an incorrect application of the law, regulation, or USCIS policy. The motion to reopen is also denied as the new evidence does not establish eligibility for the classification sought, nor does it resolve all inconsistencies noted in the prior decision.
Reasoning:
The Petitioner failed to meet the required three out of ten regulatory criteria necessary for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. The only criterion met was for scholarly articles, which was acknowledged in the initial decision.
Next Steps:
The Petitioner may consider submitting a new petition with additional and compelling evidence or explore other visa classifications that may be applicable. Legal consultation may provide further guidance on the best course of action.
