Date of Decision: May 13, 2021
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Medical Researcher
Field: Medical Research
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner met the criterion related to the authorship of scholarly articles as recognized in the Director’s Request for Evidence (RFE).
- Leading or Critical Role for Distinguished Organizations: The petitioner was acknowledged to have met this criterion for his roles in distinguished organizations.
Criteria Not Met:
- Published Material in Professional or Major Media: The petitioner did not satisfy this criterion.
- Participation as a Judge of the Work of Others: The Director concluded that the petitioner did not meet this criterion, but the decision lacked detailed analysis and references to specific evidence.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Director did not adequately address all the evidence submitted for this criterion.
- Display of Work at Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases: The petitioner requested that evidence for this criterion be considered under comparable evidence regulation, but the Director did not address this request.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
No major internationally recognized awards were indicated or established by the petitioner.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The petitioner did not satisfy the criterion related to published material in professional or major media.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Director provided a brief reference to one supporting letter and a patent but did not thoroughly evaluate all the claims and evidence submitted by the petitioner for this criterion.
Participation as a Judge:
The Director listed some of the evidence but did not provide an analysis or discussion of the listed evidence, resulting in the criterion not being met.
Membership in Associations:
Not claimed or addressed in the decision.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner satisfied this criterion as indicated in the RFE, though the final decision did not mention it.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner met the criterion for leading or critical roles for distinguished organizations.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
The petitioner requested that evidence for this criterion be considered as comparable evidence, but the Director did not address this request in the final decision.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Recommendation: Letters supporting the petitioner’s roles and contributions were submitted but not adequately considered in the Director’s final decision.
Patents and Publications: Evidence of patents and scholarly articles was provided but not fully evaluated in the final decision.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The decision of the Director is withdrawn and the matter is remanded for further review.
Reasoning:
The Director’s decision lacked a detailed analysis and did not adequately address the evidence submitted for several criteria. The Director is instructed to re-examine the evidence for the judging and original contributions criteria, consider the petitioner’s request for comparable evidence for the display criterion, and provide a determination on the scholarly articles criterion.
Next Steps:
The Director must re-evaluate the evidence submitted under the initial evidentiary criteria and, if the petitioner satisfies at least three criteria, provide an analysis of the totality of the record to determine if the petitioner has demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim and is among the small percentage at the very top of the field.
