Date of Decision: May 3, 2019
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Medical Physicist
Field: Sciences
Nationality:
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Judging of the work of others: The petitioner served as a peer reviewer for manuscripts in scientific journals.
Published scholarly articles: Authored scholarly articles in professional publications related to medical physics.
Criteria Not Met:
Original contributions of major significance: The petitioner argued her research was cited over 1,100 times, suggesting significance, but failed to demonstrate how the citations of specific articles established major significance in the field of medical physics.
Key Points from the Decision
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The petitioner’s research includes highly cited articles with the highest reaching 210, 208, and 171 citations respectively. However, the appeal failed to establish the major significance of these articles in the field.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
While the petitioner’s research was recognized in the form of citations, the appeal did not effectively demonstrate that these contributions were of major significance or had a substantial impact on the field of medical physics.
Supporting Documentation
The supporting documents included six recommendation letters and multiple articles published in reputable journals. However, the letters did not sufficiently demonstrate the major significance of the petitioner’s contributions to the field of medical physics, focusing instead on the novelty and application of the work without clear evidence of its impact.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The petitioner’s appeal is dismissed. The evidence presented did not satisfy the required three out of ten criteria, specifically failing to demonstrate that the contributions had major significance in the field of medical physics.
Reasoning:
The appeal was dismissed due to insufficient evidence of major significance and impact of the petitioner’s contributions, as required for the EB-1 extraordinary ability classification.
Next Steps:
The petitioner may consider gathering more substantial evidence or seek an alternative visa classification suitable to her qualifications and contributions.
