Date of Decision: September 14, 2023
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Lecturer
Field: Biochemistry
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met
Participation as a Judge: The petitioner demonstrated his participation as a judge of the work of others.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner provided evidence of authorship of scholarly articles in professional publications.
Criteria Not Met
Published Material About the Petitioner: The petitioner could not establish that the media in which articles about him appeared were of the qualifying types under this criterion.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The petitioner’s contributions were noted but did not demonstrate the required impact in the field of biochemistry to be considered of major significance.
Leading or Critical Role: The petitioner did not establish that he performed in a critical role for an organization with a distinguished reputation.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won
There were no awards or prizes mentioned that supported the petitioner’s claim of extraordinary ability.
Published Materials About the Petitioner
The petitioner provided articles posted on the News.uncg.edu website. However, these articles did not qualify as major media under the USCIS criteria.
Summary of Findings:
- The first article related to the petitioner’s contributions as a teacher.
- The second article mentioned the petitioner in a context unrelated to his professional achievements.
Key Quotes or References:
- The petitioner did not demonstrate that News.uncg.edu or the Campus Weekly newsletter were major media outlets.
Original Contributions of Major Significance
The petitioner’s research contributions were recognized by colleagues but lacked specific examples of significant impact in the field.
Summary of Findings:
- The petitioner’s research on cysteine desulfurases and sulfur acceptors was acknowledged but not shown to have a broad influence.
- Letters from colleagues praised the petitioner’s work but did not provide evidence of a major impact.
Key Quotes or References:
- The petitioner’s work on the Trx system and its role in Fe-S biogenesis was noted but not elaborated as a major field advancement.
Participation as a Judge
The petitioner demonstrated evidence of participating as a judge of the work of others in the field of biochemistry.
Summary of Findings:
- This criterion was met by the petitioner as the evidence provided was deemed sufficient.
Key Quotes or References:
- Specific examples or detailed records of judging activities were not provided.
Membership in Associations
There were no significant findings or mentions of the petitioner’s membership in notable associations relevant to the case.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles
The petitioner provided evidence of scholarly articles authored in professional journals.
Summary of Findings:
- Authored articles were verified as meeting the criterion but did not further support other claims.
Key Quotes or References:
- The petitioner’s publication record was substantial but not indicative of extraordinary ability on its own.
Leading or Critical Role
The petitioner’s role as a lecturer was significant within the department but did not meet the USCIS standard for a critical role.
Summary of Findings:
- Letters from colleagues highlighted the petitioner’s teaching roles but did not establish his critical influence on departmental success.
Key Quotes or References:
- Statements about the petitioner’s contributions were general and did not specify impactful outcomes or departmental achievements.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases
There were no mentions of artistic exhibitions or showcases relevant to the petitioner’s field of expertise.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration
No evidence was provided to support claims of high salary or remuneration as indicative of extraordinary ability.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts
This criterion was not applicable to the petitioner’s case.
Supporting Documentation
List of Supporting Documents:
- Letters of recommendation from colleagues
- Summary: Letters praised the petitioner’s research and teaching contributions but lacked detailed evidence of extraordinary impact.
- Articles from News.uncg.edu
- Summary: Articles did not qualify as major media and did not significantly enhance the petitioner’s case.
- Google Scholar citation record
- Summary: Citation record showed references to the petitioner’s work but did not demonstrate major significance.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner failed to meet the initial evidence requirements by not demonstrating the necessary criteria for extraordinary ability. The provided evidence did not collectively show sustained national or international acclaim.
Next Steps: The petitioner may consider providing additional evidence or re-evaluating the criteria for eligibility if pursuing future appeals or petitions.
