Date of Decision: August 8, 2018
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Industrial Hygiene Researcher
Field: Occupational Health and Safety
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards for Excellence:
The Petitioner provided evidence of receiving an academic scholarship and a certificate of recognition for dedicated service. However, these did not sufficiently demonstrate the level of national or international recognition required for this criterion.
Criteria Not Met:
Published Material About the Petitioner:
The Petitioner provided various materials, but they did not meet the necessary requirements, such as including the author and date, or demonstrating that they were from major media or trade publications.
Leading or Critical Role:
The Petitioner presented evidence of his involvement in various projects and roles, but this evidence did not establish that he performed in a leading or critical role for organizations with distinguished reputations. The letters and documents provided did not sufficiently demonstrate his significant impact on the organizations’ successes.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Petitioner submitted a manuscript and citation evidence for his published articles. However, the citation counts were low, and there was no comparative data provided to demonstrate his impact relative to peers in the field.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that his salary or remuneration was significantly higher than that of others in his field.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable based on the field of industrial hygiene research.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The Petitioner received an academic scholarship and a certificate of recognition. However, these were not shown to be at the level of national or international recognition required.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The materials provided did not meet the necessary requirements to be considered published material in major media or trade publications. They lacked key details such as the author and date.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Not addressed in the decision, suggesting no evidence was presented for this criterion.
Participation as a Judge:
Not addressed in the decision, suggesting no evidence was presented for this criterion.
Membership in Associations:
Not addressed in the decision, suggesting no evidence was presented for this criterion.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Petitioner’s articles had low citation counts, and there was no comparative data provided to demonstrate his impact relative to peers.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The evidence did not demonstrate that the Petitioner’s roles were leading or critical in distinguished organizations, failing to meet this criterion.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable based on the field of industrial hygiene research.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The evidence provided was insufficient to demonstrate high salary or remuneration compared to peers in the field.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable based on the field of industrial hygiene research.
Supporting Documentation
The documentation included letters from professionals, evidence of academic scholarships and certificates, manuscripts, and citation records. However, these documents did not sufficiently establish the Petitioner’s recognition or the required acclaim.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal dismissed.
Reasoning:
The Petitioner did not submit the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria listed in the regulations. The overall review of the submitted materials did not demonstrate the sustained acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought.
Next Steps:
The Petitioner may consider gathering more robust and detailed evidence to support the criteria that were not met. Ensuring that all documentation includes specific details about the significance and impact of the Petitioner’s contributions on the field is crucial for any future submissions.
