Date of Decision: December 31, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Field of Expertise: Biomedical Science
Petitioner Information
Profession: Director of Program Management
Field: Biomedical Science
Nationality: [Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Participation as a Judge: The Petitioner met this criterion by providing evidence of peer review activities for multiple journals, including Journal of Orthopaedics and The International Journal of Health, Wellness and Society, satisfying the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv).
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The Petitioner met this criterion by providing evidence of his scholarly articles published in professional journals, satisfying the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi).
Leading or Critical Role: The Petitioner met this criterion by demonstrating his leading or critical role in a distinguished organization, satisfying the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii).
Criteria Not Met:
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that his contributions were of major significance in the field. While the Petitioner provided letters praising his work, they did not provide detailed explanations of the impact and significance of his contributions. The evidence did not demonstrate that his contributions were widely recognized or had a significant influence in the field, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v).
High Salary or Remuneration: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that his salary was significantly high compared to others in his field. While the Petitioner provided data from the Department of Labor’s Foreign Labor Certification Data Center, he did not provide supporting evidence for total remuneration in comparison with similarly employed workers in his geographic area, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix).
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of receiving nationally or internationally recognized awards.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The Petitioner provided articles, but they did not establish him as the primary subject or qualify as major media.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner’s contributions were not demonstrated to have major significance in the field.
Participation as a Judge:
The Petitioner participated as a judge in professional settings, meeting this criterion.
Membership in Associations:
The Petitioner did not establish that his memberships required outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Petitioner authored several scholarly articles, meeting this criterion.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The Petitioner held leading or critical roles within distinguished organizations, meeting this criterion.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of a high salary compared to others in his field.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
The Petitioner provided various supporting documents, including letters of recommendation, articles, and evidence of his work. However, these did not collectively establish the required criteria for extraordinary ability.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not demonstrate that he met at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. While the Petitioner satisfied the criteria for participation as a judge, authorship of scholarly articles, and leading or critical role, the evidence provided did not establish his original contributions as of major significance or his high salary compared to others in his field. The totality of the evidence did not support a finding of 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 submitting additional evidence that clearly establishes the major significance of his contributions or explore other immigration options that may better fit his qualifications.
