Date of Decision: November 13, 2019
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Interventional Cardiologist
Field: Cardiology
Nationality: India
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Judging the Work of Others: The petitioner has peer-reviewed manuscripts for several medical journals including Open Journal of Clinical and Medical Case Reports, Journal of Geriatric Cardiology, and Journal of Interventional Cardiology. Additionally, he has served on the editorial board of Clinical Case Reports.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner has authored articles published in reputable journals such as The American Journal of the Medical Sciences, American Journal of Cardiology, and Echocardiography.
Criteria Not Met:
Membership in Associations: The petitioner was a Fellow member in the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI). However, the evidence did not establish that these memberships required outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The petitioner’s recommendation letters praised his research’s novelty but did not provide specific examples indicating major significance. His research has been cited by others, but this alone did not demonstrate a major impact on the field of cardiology.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Not applicable.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Not applicable.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The letters and citations provided did not sufficiently demonstrate that the petitioner’s work had a significant impact on the field of cardiology.
Participation as a Judge:
Evidence of judging the work of others in his field was accepted and met the criteria.
Membership in Associations:
The petitioner’s memberships in ACC and SCAI did not meet the criteria for requiring outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner’s publications were accepted and met the criteria.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Not applicable.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not applicable.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
The petitioner submitted:
- Bylaws of ACC and SCAI: Provided but did not support claims of outstanding achievements for membership.
- Recommendation Letters: Praised the petitioner’s work but lacked specifics on the major significance.
- Published Articles and Citations: Cited by other researchers but did not prove major impact on the field.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner did not meet the required initial evidence of a one-time achievement or documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria. Despite the petitioner’s achievements, the evidence did not support the claim of extraordinary ability as defined by USCIS regulations.
Reasoning: The petitioner’s evidence showed novelty and productivity in research but lacked demonstration of major significance and impact in the field. The memberships cited did not require the level of achievement necessary to meet the extraordinary ability criteria.
Next Steps: Recommendations for the petitioner would include gathering more specific evidence of major contributions and significant impact in the field, and possibly reapplying with additional supporting documentation.
