Date of Decision: OCT. 1, 2019
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Geologist
Field: Geological Sciences
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Judging: The Beneficiary reviewed manuscripts for scientific journals.
- Scholarly Articles: Authored scholarly articles in professional publications.
- Published Material: Published material about the Beneficiary in professional publications.
Criteria Not Met:
- Awards and Prizes: Scholarships, grants, and fellowships awarded to the Beneficiary were not deemed equivalent to nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field.
- Membership in Associations: Membership in the International Association of Mathematical Geosciences (IAMG) was not shown to reflect the small percentage at the very top of the field.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Petitioner did not demonstrate the Beneficiary’s impact and influence in her field to be at the top level.
- Participation as a Judge: The judging experience was not sufficiently distinguished to place the Beneficiary at the very top of her field.
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles: Although six articles were published, this did not establish sustained national or international acclaim.
- Leading or Critical Role: The role as chair for the IAMG student chapter was not proven to result in widespread acclaim.
- Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration: No evidence provided.
- Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts: Not applicable.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The Beneficiary received travel grants and scholarships, but these were not recognized as national or international awards of excellence in geology.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Four articles were cited in professional publications, yet these did not demonstrate the level of sustained national or international acclaim required for EB-1 classification.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The contributions were not shown to reflect a career of acclaimed work garnering sustained national or international recognition.
Participation as a Judge:
Evidence of serving as a manuscript reviewer was provided, but this was not sufficient to prove extraordinary ability.
Membership in Associations:
Membership in IAMG did not prove the Beneficiary’s status at the very top of her field.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
While the Beneficiary authored several articles, the quantity and impact of these publications did not meet the required standard.
Supporting Documentation
- Judging Experience: Documents showing the Beneficiary’s role in reviewing scientific manuscripts.
- Scholarly Articles: Copies of articles authored by the Beneficiary.
- Published Material: Articles mentioning the Beneficiary’s achievements.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal dismissed, the Beneficiary’s eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability was not demonstrated.
Reasoning:
The evidence did not show sustained national or international acclaim or that the Beneficiary is among the small percentage at the top of her field.
Next Steps:
The Petitioner may consider submitting additional, more substantial evidence or seeking alternative immigration pathways.
