Date of Decision: January 5, 2017
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Medical Director and Spinal Surgeon
Field: Sciences
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Judging Criterion
The Petitioner served as a thesis advisor and faculty advisor, but this does not meet the judging criterion as defined by the regulations.
Scholarly Articles
The Petitioner documented his authorship of scholarly articles in professional publications.
Criteria Not Met:
Membership in Associations
The Petitioner’s memberships with various associations did not meet the criterion as the associations did not require outstanding achievements for membership and were not judged by recognized national or international experts.
Original Contributions
The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence that his contributions were of major significance in his field.
High Salary or Remuneration
The evidence presented did not establish that the Petitioner commanded a high salary in relation to other medical directors.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
- Summary of findings: The Petitioner previously claimed eligibility for the awards criterion but did not contest the Director’s decision on this criterion on appeal.
- Key quotes or references: N/A
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
- Summary of findings: The Petitioner’s published materials did not demonstrate major significance.
- Key quotes or references: N/A
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- Summary of findings: The Petitioner’s conference presentations and other contributions did not influence the field significantly.
- Key quotes or references: “The record does not demonstrate that the Petitioner’s presentations are frequently cited by other researchers or have otherwise impacted the field.”
Participation as a Judge:
- Summary of findings: The Petitioner served as a thesis and faculty advisor but did not serve as a judge in a formal capacity.
- Key quotes or references: “The Petitioner did not demonstrate that he served as a judge consistent with the plain language of this regulatory criterion.”
Membership in Associations:
- Summary of findings: The Petitioner’s memberships did not meet the criterion as they were not based on outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
- Key quotes or references: “Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a given field, minimum education or experience, recommendations by colleagues or current members, or payment of dues do not satisfy this criterion.”
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
- Summary of findings: The Petitioner documented his authorship of scholarly articles in professional publications.
- Key quotes or references: “The Petitioner documented his authorship of scholarly articles in professional publications.”
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
- Summary of findings: Not addressed in the decision.
- Key quotes or references: N/A
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
- Summary of findings: Not addressed in the decision.
- Key quotes or references: N/A
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
- Summary of findings: The Petitioner’s evidence did not establish that he commanded a high salary compared to other medical directors.
- Key quotes or references: “The Petitioner has not shown that he commands a high salary in relation to other medical directors.”
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
- Summary of findings: Not applicable.
- Key quotes or references: N/A
Supporting Documentation
- The Petitioner submitted various supporting documents, including membership letters, recommendation letters, tax returns, and scholarly articles. However, these documents did not sufficiently meet the required evidentiary criteria.
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 listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The evidence presented did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that the Petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor.
Next Steps:
The Petitioner may consider reapplying with additional evidence or exploring other visa options.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
