Date of Decision: December 29, 2021
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Doctoral Student and Teaching Assistant
Field: Mathematics
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner authored an article published in the journal “Inverse Problems” in 2015, which was recognized as meeting this criterion.
Criteria Not Met:
Participation as a Judge of the Work of Others: The petitioner submitted evidence of mentoring undergraduate students and assisting with presentations, but this did not meet the criterion of judging the work of others in the field.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: While the petitioner claimed to have made significant contributions, this claim was not sufficiently supported by the evidence provided.
Other Criteria: The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to meet any of the other criteria required under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3).
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The document does not provide details on awards or prizes won by the petitioner.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The document does not provide details on published materials about the petitioner.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner’s contributions, while notable, were not demonstrated to have major significance in the field of mathematics.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner mentored students and assisted with their presentations, but this did not qualify as judging the work of others in the field.
Membership in Associations:
The document does not provide specific details on the petitioner’s membership in professional associations.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner authored an article in a reputable journal, meeting this criterion.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate holding a leading or critical role within distinguished organizations.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
The document does not provide details on artistic exhibitions or showcases involving the petitioner.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of high salary or remuneration relative to others in their field.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
The petitioner did not claim or provide evidence for this criterion.
Supporting Documentation
The petitioner submitted various documents, including articles, letters of recommendation, and evidence of contributions to the field of mathematics. However, the evidence was not sufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.
Conclusion
Final Determination:
The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner failed to establish eligibility for the requested benefit as they did not meet the required evidentiary criteria. The evidence provided did not demonstrate that the petitioner met at least three of the ten criteria, and the contributions were not shown to have major significance in the field. The petitioner’s claims and evidence, while notable, did not rise to the level of demonstrating sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the top of their field.
Next Steps:
The petitioner should ensure that any future filings address the specific deficiencies noted in the decision. This includes providing more substantial and detailed evidence of national or international acclaim, ensuring all filing requirements are met, and potentially seeking further legal advice to strengthen the petition.
