Date of Decision: February 2, 2018
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Data Scientist
Field: Agricultural Analytics
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Participation as a Judge: The beneficiary has peer-reviewed manuscripts for several journals and reviewed a chapter for an academic book.
Authorship of Scholarly articles : The beneficiary has authored articles that have appeared in professional publications.
Leading or critical role: The beneficiary has performed in a critical role for the petitioning organization, an entity with a distinguished reputation.
Criteria Not Met:
Nationally or internationally recognized awards : The evidence did not establish that the awards and recognitions claimed by the petitioner were significant on a national or international level.
Original contributions of major significance: The petitioner did not demonstrate that the beneficiary’s work had a substantial impact or was widely recognized in the field.
High salary: The salary evidence provided did not demonstrate that the beneficiary’s earnings were significantly higher than those of peers in the same field.
Comparable evidence for the published material: The petitioner did not establish that the published materials were of such significance to indicate the beneficiary’s extraordinary ability.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner claimed that the beneficiary had received significant awards, but the evidence did not support the level of recognition required for this criterion.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The petitioner provided materials about the petitioning organization rather than the beneficiary, which did not support claims of national or international acclaim for the beneficiary.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The beneficiary’s research contributions were acknowledged, but the evidence did not show that these contributions were of major significance in the field.
Participation as a Judge:
While the beneficiary had some judging experience, the extent and impact of this work were not sufficient to meet the criteria for extraordinary ability.
Membership in Associations:
The petitioner did not provide compelling evidence of the beneficiary’s membership in prestigious associations that would indicate extraordinary ability.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The beneficiary authored several scholarly articles, but the citation history and influence of these articles did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The beneficiary played a critical role in the petitioning organization, but the impact of this role on the field at large was not sufficiently demonstrated.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The salary evidence provided did not convincingly show that the beneficiary’s earnings were significantly higher than those of peers in similar roles.
Supporting Documentation
The petitioner submitted various supporting documents including emails confirming peer reviews, scholarly articles authored by the beneficiary, invitation letters for editorial board positions, internal company communications, and salary statements. However, the evidence was not compelling enough to demonstrate the beneficiary’s extraordinary ability under the EB1 criteria.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary met the required criteria for extraordinary ability, as the evidence provided did not show sustained national or international acclaim or position the beneficiary among the small percentage at the very top of the field.
Next Steps:
The petitioner may consider providing additional compelling evidence or seeking alternative visa classifications that may better fit the beneficiary’s qualifications and achievements.
