Date of Decision: January 24, 2018
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Doctoral Candidate and Researcher
Field: Biomedical Research
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Participation as a Judge: The petitioner provided evidence of having reviewed manuscripts for publication, satisfying the criteria for judging the work of others in the same or allied field.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner documented authorship of scholarly articles in professional publications, meeting the criterion for this category.
Criteria Not Met:
Lesser Prizes or Awards: The petitioner submitted certificates for fellowships, which were not recognized as national or international prizes or awards for excellence. These fellowships were deemed to offer training opportunities rather than awards recognizing excellence in the field.
Published Material About the Petitioner: The articles submitted primarily cited the petitioner’s work rather than being about the petitioner or his work. Therefore, they did not meet the requirement of being published material about the petitioner in major media.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The petitioner provided letters from professors and researchers indicating the potential impact of his work. However, these letters did not provide concrete examples of how his contributions have already influenced the field to the degree required to satisfy this criterion.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner submitted certificates for fellowships, but these were not recognized as national or international awards for excellence in the field. The petitioner did not provide documentary evidence that these fellowships are recognized nationally or internationally.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The petitioner submitted five articles citing his work. However, these articles were primarily about the authors’ own work or trends in the field and did not discuss the petitioner’s work, his standing in the field, or the impact of his work.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner provided letters from professors and researchers discussing the potential impact of his work. However, the letters did not provide specific examples of how the petitioner’s work has influenced the field, failing to meet the requirement of original contributions of major significance.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner provided evidence of reviewing manuscripts for publication, meeting the requirement for participation as a judge of the work of others in the field.
Membership in Associations:
There was no information provided in the document about membership in associations.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner documented authorship of scholarly articles in professional publications, meeting this criterion.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
No specific evidence or mention was provided regarding the petitioner’s leading or critical roles in the document.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable as the petitioner is in the field of biomedical research.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
There was no mention of high salary or remuneration in the document.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable as the petitioner is in the field of biomedical research.
Supporting Documentation
The petitioner submitted various documents, including certificates for fellowships, articles citing his work, and letters from professors and researchers. However, these documents were not sufficient to meet the evidentiary criteria required for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not meet the initial evidence requirements of either a one-time achievement or documentation fulfilling at least three of the ten criteria listed. Therefore, the petitioner did not establish the level of expertise required for the classification sought.
Next Steps: The petitioner may consider gathering additional evidence or re-evaluating the criteria to better support a future petition.
By following this structure and analyzing each section, the blog post provides a comprehensive overview of the USCIS appeal review, including key points and the final determination.
