Date of Decision: JUNE 8, 2023
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Marine Biologist
Field: Marine Biology
Nationality: [Nationality not specified in the provided text]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
1. Judging: The Petitioner met the criteria relating to judging.
2. Authorship: The Petitioner met the criteria relating to authorship.
Criteria Not Met:
1. Awards: The Petitioner did not demonstrate that his fellowship was recognized as a nationally or internationally significant award.
2. Membership: The Petitioner did not establish that his memberships required outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
3. Published Material: The material provided did not focus on the Petitioner and lacked evidence of major trade publication status.
4. Original Contributions: The Petitioner failed to show his work had major significance in the field beyond limited applications.
5. Artistic Display: Not mentioned as a criterion in the provided text.
6. Leading or Critical Role: Not met according to the Director’s review.
7. Salary: The Petitioner did not satisfy the salary criterion.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
- The Petitioner’s fellowship in Ecuador was not recognized as a nationally or internationally significant award.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
- A 2013 article in “El Serviola” briefly mentioned the Petitioner but did not meet the regulatory criteria as it was not about him.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- The Petitioner’s research was referenced by other researchers but did not show widespread impact or major significance.
Participation as a Judge:
- Criterion met; specific details not provided.
Membership in Associations:
- The Petitioner was a member of the International Biometric Society and fulfilled accreditation requirements, but did not show these memberships required outstanding achievements.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
- Criterion met; specific details not provided.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
- The Petitioner did not meet this criterion.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
- Not applicable in the provided text.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
- Not met according to the Director’s review.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
- Not applicable in the provided text.
Supporting Documentation
- March 2017 Letter from the Manager of [Organization] in Ecuador: Approved as a Researcher Category 3, developed a research project satisfactorily.
- June 2015 Article in El Telegrafo: Did not mention the Petitioner or his 2014 fellowship.
- Membership Documentation: International Biometric Society and [Organization] in Ecuador.
- 2013 Article in El Serviola: Briefly mentioned the Petitioner.
- Reference Letters from Experts: Discussed his research but lacked sufficient detail to show major significance.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
- The Petitioner did not satisfy at least three of the evidentiary criteria required for the classification sought. The documentation provided did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or major significance in the field of marine biology.
Next Steps:
- The Petitioner should consider providing more comprehensive evidence demonstrating the national or international significance of his awards, contributions, and memberships. Detailed documentation of the impact of his work and any significant recognitions or accolades received would strengthen the petition.
