Date of Decision: September 27, 2018
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Life and Environmental Scientist
Field: Sciences
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Judging: The Petitioner served on the editorial board for journals and as a peer reviewer of manuscripts.
Scholarly Articles: The Petitioner authored scholarly articles in professional publications.
Criteria Not Met:
Original Contributions: The Petitioner claimed that her research clarified genome regulation by transposable elements and contributed to the understanding of RNA interference in transcriptional silencing. However, she did not demonstrate that her work was widely implemented or remarkably influenced the field. The citations of her work and the letters of recommendation did not establish her contributions as being of major significance.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
N/A – No specific awards or prizes were detailed.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The Petitioner’s scholarly articles were cited, but this did not demonstrate their major significance in the field.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner argued that her work had a significant impact on molecular biology, particularly in understanding genome regulation. However, the evidence provided did not establish the widespread impact or major significance required.
Participation as a Judge:
The Petitioner served as a peer reviewer and editorial board member for professional publications.
Membership in Associations:
N/A – No specific memberships in associations were detailed.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Petitioner authored several scholarly articles published in professional journals, fulfilling this criterion.
Supporting Documentation
Letters from peers and experts attesting to the significance of the Petitioner’s research.
Evidence of the Petitioner’s role as a peer reviewer and editorial board member.
Citation analysis of the Petitioner’s scholarly articles.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Denied
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not meet the initial evidence requirements of at least three criteria and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim as an individual of extraordinary ability.
Next Steps: The Petitioner should consider gathering more substantial and comprehensive evidence of her extraordinary ability and the major significance of her contributions before reapplying. This could include demonstrating the widespread implementation and impact of her research.
