Date of Decision: October 28, 2021
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Medical Consultant
Field: Endocrinology and Metabolism
Nationality: Chinese
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Judging the Work of Others:
The Petitioner performed peer reviews for several scholarly journals, indicating active participation in evaluating the work of peers in the field.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Petitioner authored numerous scholarly articles in the medical field, demonstrating her contribution to academic literature.
Criteria Not Met:
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that her contributions were of major significance in the field. The evidence provided did not show that her work had a significant impact on the field of diabetes and gout/hyperuricemia.
Leading or Critical Role:
The Petitioner did not provide adequate evidence to prove that she performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments with a distinguished reputation. The roles mentioned, such as Director of the Diabetes Department at a university hospital, lacked specific examples showing how her performance was critically important to the organization’s success.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
No significant awards or prizes were detailed that met the criteria for extraordinary ability.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The Petitioner claimed that her published articles had been cited nearly 600 times, but this was not adequately supported by independent evidence showing the significance of these citations.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner highlighted her research on the relationship between certain biochemical markers and diabetes. However, the evidence did not establish that her findings were widely implemented or significantly impacted the field.
Participation as a Judge:
The Petitioner demonstrated participation as a peer reviewer for various scholarly journals.
Membership in Associations:
No significant memberships in associations that could prove extraordinary ability were detailed.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Petitioner authored numerous articles, but the impact and significance of these publications were not sufficiently demonstrated.
Leading or Critical Role:
The Petitioner claimed leadership roles, but the evidence did not support that these roles were critical to the success of the organizations.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
No evidence of a high salary or remuneration indicative of extraordinary ability was provided.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
Peer Review Letters: Provided letters demonstrating her role in peer reviewing articles.
Authorship Evidence: Submitted articles and publication records.
Expert Opinion Letters: Letters from peers praising her contributions but lacking specific examples of major significance.
Citation Records: Citation records from Google Scholar and other databases, but without adequate support for claims of significant impact.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not meet the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria. The evidence provided did not support a finding that the Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought.
Next Steps: The Petitioner may consider gathering more robust evidence that clearly demonstrates the major significance of her contributions, her critical role in organizations with distinguished reputations, and other criteria that may support a future petition for extraordinary ability classification.
