Date of Decision: November 9, 2017
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Clinical Investigator
Field: Clinical Sciences
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Approved
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The Petitioner met the criterion for authorship of scholarly articles, having submitted evidence of five articles.
Criteria Not Met:
- Receipt of Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards for Excellence: The Petitioner failed to demonstrate receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards. An investigation revealed discrepancies regarding the authenticity and recognition of the award presented.
- Membership in Associations: The Petitioner’s memberships did not meet the requirements for associations that demand outstanding achievements judged by national or international experts.
- Published Materials About the Petitioner: Listings on clinicaltrials.gov were not considered major media or professional publications about the Petitioner.
- Participation as a Judge of the Work of Others: The Petitioner’s role as chairman of his own company’s board, which reviewed studies he initiated, did not meet the criterion of judging the work of others.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence that his contributions had a major impact on the field.
- Display of Work at Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases: The Petitioner’s presentation at a scientific summit did not qualify as an artistic exhibition or showcase.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The Petitioner could not substantiate the award he claimed to have received from a recognized society. The investigation found no record of such an award being issued.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The listings on clinicaltrials.gov did not satisfy the requirement for major media or professional publications.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner’s work, including the proposed studies and articles, did not demonstrate a significant impact or recognition in the field.
Participation as a Judge:
The Petitioner’s role in his own company did not qualify as an independent assessment of others’ work.
Membership in Associations:
The Petitioner’s memberships were based on professional involvement and publications, not on outstanding achievements as judged by experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Petitioner met this criterion by submitting evidence of five scholarly articles.
Supporting Documentation
- Medical Degree: Evidence of the Petitioner’s medical education.
- Professional Memberships: Documentation of memberships in various professional associations.
- Presentations: Records of presentations at scientific conferences.
- Scholarly Articles: Copies of five articles authored by the Petitioner.
- Patent Application: Documentation of a patent application submitted by the Petitioner.
- Curriculum Vitae (CV): A detailed CV outlining the Petitioner’s professional experience and achievements.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed. 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.
Reasoning:
The Petitioner failed to provide sufficient, verifiable evidence to meet the necessary criteria. Discrepancies in the record and lack of independent, objective evidence undermined the claim of extraordinary ability.
Next Steps:
The Petitioner may consider gathering more robust and verifiable evidence to support any future petitions. It is crucial to address and resolve any discrepancies with independent, objective documentation.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
