Date of Decision: February 25, 2021
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
- Profession: Critical Care Specialist
- Field: Pediatric Critical Care Medicine
- Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
- Initial Decision: Denied
- Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Published Articles: The beneficiary authored several articles published in journals with notable impact factors.
Participation as a Judge: The beneficiary served as a reviewer for medical manuscripts and evaluated subordinates and job candidates.
Membership in Associations: The beneficiary held the status of Fellow in the American College of Critical Care Medicine.
Criteria Not Met:
Awards and Prizes: The award received by the beneficiary was included in a publication that did not meet the criteria for widespread recognition.
Original Contributions: The evidence did not support the claim that the beneficiary’s contributions led to sustained national or international acclaim.
Leading or Critical Role: The evidence provided did not establish the beneficiary’s leading or critical role that resulted in recognition at a national or international level.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner claimed that the beneficiary’s work on the vasoactive-ventilation-renal (VVR) score was recognized as one of the Top 10 Contributions to Cardiology in 2019 by AvidScience. However, this recognition was based on a compilation of scholarly articles rather than an established award with recognized criteria and broad consensus.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The beneficiary’s articles were published in journals with significant impact factors, but there was no evidence that these articles had a notable impact or received substantial citations indicating sustained national or international acclaim.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The beneficiary contributed to the refinement of the VVR score, but there was no evidence that this work resulted in national or international acclaim. The recognition of the VVR score itself did not translate into acclaim for the beneficiary.
Participation as a Judge:
The beneficiary reviewed medical manuscripts and evaluated candidates, but this activity was considered routine and did not elevate him to the top of his field.
Membership in Associations:
The beneficiary’s status as a Fellow in the American College of Critical Care Medicine was noted, but this status requires contributions at a regional, state, or national level and does not imply national or international acclaim.
Supporting Documentation
Reference Letters: Letters from colleagues and mentors supporting the beneficiary’s expertise and contributions.
Exhibition Evidence: Information about the beneficiary’s participation in exhibitions and presentations.
Published Material: Articles authored by the beneficiary and their citation records.
Award Evidence: Documentation of awards and recognitions received by the beneficiary.
Conclusion
Final Determination:
Outcome: Appeal Dismissed
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not demonstrate that the beneficiary achieved sustained national or international acclaim or that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence provided, while substantial, did not meet the high standard required for the EB1 Extraordinary Ability classification.
Next Steps:
Recommendation: The petitioner may consider providing additional evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or achievements recognized by independent sources to meet the criteria for extraordinary ability in future applications.
