Date of Decision: FEB. 7, 2019
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Materials Scientist
Field: Materials Science
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Participation as a Judge:
The Petitioner presented documentation confirming that he served as a reviewer for professional publications in 2016 and 2017.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Petitioner has authored several scholarly articles published in professional journals, including notable ones in Energy & Environmental Science and ACS Nano.
Criteria Not Met:
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The evidence presented did not sufficiently demonstrate that the Petitioner’s research findings or methods have been widely accepted or implemented throughout the field or had a major impact. Citation of the Petitioner’s work alone was deemed insufficient without evidence of significant influence or commentary.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
No significant awards or prizes were presented that meet the major, internationally recognized award criterion.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The incomplete copies of articles citing the Petitioner’s work did not verify that his articles have been cited as authoritative or have significantly influenced the field.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Letters of reference, while positive about the Petitioner’s research, lacked specifics on how his contributions have already influenced the field significantly.
Participation as a Judge:
Confirmed, but the overall contributions did not satisfy the criteria needed for extraordinary ability.
Membership in Associations:
No substantial evidence was presented regarding memberships in associations that would meet the required criteria.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Confirmed but did not meet the overall evidentiary requirements for extraordinary ability.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
No significant evidence was provided to demonstrate leading or critical roles performed by the Petitioner.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not applicable.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
- Participation as a Judge: Documentation from professional publications confirming the Petitioner’s role as a reviewer.
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles: Copies of articles published in notable journals.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not meet the required initial evidence of either a one-time major achievement or at least three of the ten specified criteria. The record did not support a finding of the necessary acclaim and recognition required for the classification of extraordinary ability.
Next Steps: Recommendations include gathering more substantial evidence of significant impact in the field and potentially addressing any gaps in demonstrating sustained national or international acclaim.
