Date of Decision: DEC. 21, 2016
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Computer Scientist
Field: Sciences
Nationality: [Not Specified in Document]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Participation as a Judge: The petitioner has reviewed articles for scientific journals.
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner documented authorship in professional publications.
Criteria Not Met:
- Awards and Prizes: The petitioner did not provide evidence that his awards were nationally or internationally recognized for excellence.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance: The petitioner did not demonstrate that his contributions were of major significance in the field.
- Leading or Critical Role: The petitioner did not establish that he performed in a leading or critical role within his organization.
- High Salary or Remuneration: The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence that his salary was significantly high in relation to others in his field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner submitted evidence of a fellowship and grants, but these did not meet the regulatory requirements for nationally or internationally recognized prizes for excellence.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The petitioner’s articles were published in professional journals, which supports his authorship criterion.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner’s citations and patents were not considered of major significance. Letters from peers and recommendations did not sufficiently demonstrate major significance.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner has judged articles for scientific journals, satisfying this criterion.
Membership in Associations:
Not addressed in the document.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner met this criterion by documenting his authorship in professional publications.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner did not establish that his role was critical or leading within his organization.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The petitioner did not provide evidence to show his salary was significantly high compared to others in the field.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
- Fellowships and Grants: Submitted but did not meet criteria.
- Reviewing Articles for Journals: Met criterion.
- Published Articles: Met criterion.
- Citations and Patents: Insufficient evidence for major significance.
- Recommendation Letters: Praised petitioner but lacked detailed impact evidence.
- Job Offer Letters: Submitted but insufficient for high salary criterion.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not satisfy the required number of criteria to establish eligibility for the EB1 Extraordinary Ability classification. The evidence provided was not sufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of his field.
Next Steps:
The petitioner may consider gathering more substantial evidence of significant contributions, high remuneration, or additional recognized awards, and reapplying or pursuing other immigration avenues.
