Date of Decision: December 16, 2021
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Infectious Disease Clinician
Field: Infectious Disease
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Participation as a Judge of the Work of Others: The petitioner served as a judge for the work of others in their field.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner authored several scholarly articles published in reputable journals.
Criteria Not Met:
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The petitioner’s contributions, although notable, were not demonstrated to have major significance in the field.
Leading or Critical Role: The petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate holding a leading or critical role for distinguished organizations.
High Salary or Other Remuneration: The petitioner did not provide adequate evidence of earning a high salary relative to others in the field.
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 made contributions to the field of infectious disease, particularly in HIV cure research and transplant medicine, but the evidence did not demonstrate that these contributions had a major impact on the field.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner served as a judge in their field, which was recognized as meeting one of the criteria.
Membership in Associations:
The petitioner was a member of professional associations, but the evidence did not demonstrate that the memberships required outstanding achievements.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner authored scholarly articles that were published in reputable journals, satisfying 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, evidence of participation in judging, and documentation of contributions to infectious disease research. 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 appeal did not present new arguments or evidence that would overturn the previous decision. 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.
