Date of Decision: NOV. 21, 2019
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Engineer
Field: Materials Science
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Participation as a Judge: The Petitioner provided services as a peer reviewer for Electrochimica Acta, Journal of Applied Polymer Science, and Journal of Metals.
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The Petitioner published articles in journals and conferences including the Journal of Materials Science, Journal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, and the Journal of Metals.
Criteria Not Met:
- Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Petitioner’s contributions, though original, lacked specific examples and corroborating evidence to establish their major significance in the field.
- Leading or Critical Role: The Petitioner’s role in her organization was described as instrumental and invaluable by colleagues, but insufficient evidence was provided to demonstrate the significant importance of her role to the company’s overall operations or standing in the industry.
Key Points from the Decision
Original Contributions of Major Significance
- Summary of Findings: The Petitioner’s research contributions were original but did not provide specific examples or corroborating evidence showing a significant impact on the field.
- Key Quotes or References: “The letters primarily contain attestations of the novelty and utility of the Petitioner’s research studies without providing specific examples of contributions that rise to a level consistent with major significance.”
Authorship of Scholarly Articles
- Summary of Findings: The Petitioner successfully demonstrated authorship of multiple scholarly articles in respected journals.
- Key Quotes or References: “This evidence establishes that she published articles in journals and conferences including the Journal of Materials Science, Journal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, and the Journal of Metals.”
Leading or Critical Role
- Summary of Findings: The evidence provided did not sufficiently establish that the Petitioner’s role was of significant importance to the organization’s outcome or standing.
- Key Quotes or References: “The letters stop short of explaining how her role with the company has been of significant importance to the outcome or standing of the organization or its activities.”
Supporting Documentation
- Peer Review Evidence: Documentation confirming the Petitioner’s role as a peer reviewer for several journals.
- Published Articles: Copies of the Petitioner’s articles and Google Scholar citation history.
- Letters from Colleagues: Multiple letters from colleagues and supervisors attesting to the Petitioner’s contributions and roles in various projects.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not meet the required initial evidence criteria, and the totality of the evidence did not support a finding of sustained national or international acclaim or recognition required for the classification sought.
Next Steps: The Petitioner may consider providing additional independent evidence, such as further corroborating letters from outside experts, more comprehensive citation data, or documented implementation of her contributions by other researchers or industries.
