Date of Decision: September 8, 2015
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Not Specified
Field: Sciences
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met
Participation as a Judge:
The Petitioner submitted evidence of his appointment as the Review Editor of a journal and his peer review duties for two scholarly journals.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Petitioner met this criterion by submitting evidence of his scholarly articles published in internationally circulated journals in his field.
Criteria Not Met
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner’s evidence, including citations, patents, and reference letters, did not demonstrate major significance in the field. Although his work was cited internationally, the number and nature of citations were not indicative of significant influence within the field. Patents and grant funding also did not establish major impact.
Leading or Critical Role:
The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of a leading or critical role within distinguished organizations. Titles alone were insufficient without details on duties and impact.
Key Points from the Decision
Original Contributions of Major Significance
The Petitioner’s contributions, while original, did not rise to the level of major significance in the field. The evidence did not show that his work significantly impacted the field. Reference letters lacked specific examples of major contributions.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles
The Petitioner’s publications in internationally circulated journals met this criterion, demonstrating his contributions to scholarly literature in his field.
Participation as a Judge
The Petitioner’s roles as Review Editor and peer reviewer for scholarly journals were sufficient to meet this criterion.
Leading or Critical Role
Evidence of the Petitioner’s roles within organizations did not demonstrate significant impact on the organizations’ success. Titles and general descriptions were not enough to establish a leading or critical role.
Supporting Documentation
- Appointment as Review Editor: Documentation of the Petitioner’s role as Review Editor.
- Peer Review Duties: Evidence of peer review responsibilities for two scholarly journals.
- Scholarly Articles: Copies of the Petitioner’s articles published in internationally circulated journals.
- Reference Letters: Letters from colleagues and experts, though lacking specific examples of major impact.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal Dismissed
Reasoning:
The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to meet the required criteria for EB1 classification. The documentation did not establish that the Petitioner had made original contributions of major significance, performed in a leading or critical role, or impacted the field significantly.
Next Steps:
Petitioners should ensure they provide detailed evidence demonstrating major significance in their field, specific examples of impact, and corroborative documentation supporting their claims.
