Date of Decision: April 17, 2018
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Doctoral Candidate and Researcher
Field: Material Chemistry
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Participation as a Judge at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv):
The petitioner reviewed manuscripts submitted for publication, which qualifies as participation as a judge of the work of others in the same field.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi):
The petitioner authored scholarly articles in professional publications, meeting the criterion for authorship of scholarly articles.
Criteria Not Met:
Original Contributions at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v):
The petitioner claimed original contributions of major significance in material chemistry, specifically in the use of nanodiamonds in drug delivery, titanium dioxide structures, and fullerene. However, the evidence did not demonstrate that these contributions had a significant impact on the field. Letters from experts indicated potential future contributions rather than established major contributions.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Not applicable based on the provided evidence.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of published materials about him in major media or trade publications.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner’s work in material chemistry was acknowledged, but the evidence did not establish that these contributions had a significant impact on the field.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner met the criterion by reviewing manuscripts for publication.
Membership in Associations:
Not discussed in the decision.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner authored scholarly articles in professional publications, meeting this criterion.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Not applicable based on the provided evidence.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not applicable based on the provided evidence.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
The petitioner provided several pieces of evidence, including:
Letters from experts and peers discussing the potential impact of his research.
Documentation of reviewing manuscripts for publication.
Authorship of scholarly articles in professional publications.
Conclusion
Final Determination:
The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to meet the initial criteria required for EB1 Extraordinary Ability classification. Although the petitioner met two criteria, the evidence did not demonstrate a major contribution in the field of material chemistry. Consequently, the petitioner failed to establish the level of expertise required for the classification sought.
Next Steps:
The petitioner may consider consulting with new legal counsel to explore any further options for appeal or other immigration benefits for which he may be eligible.
