Date of Decision: AUG. 7, 2019
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Research Associate
Field: Microbial Ecology
Nationality:
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Judging under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv): The petitioner served as a peer reviewer of manuscripts.
Scholarly Articles under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi): Authored scholarly articles in professional publications.
Criteria Not Met:
Membership in Associations: Evidence did not demonstrate required outstanding achievements for membership.
Published Material About the Petitioner: Submitted articles were about scientific findings, not about the petitioner herself.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: Insufficient evidence to show that the petitioner’s work constituted original contributions of major significance in the field.
Leading or Critical Role: Did not demonstrate a leading or critical role in recognized organizations with significant impact.
Key Points from the Decision
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The appeal highlighted the petitioner’s invited symposia and articles, yet failed to specify their major significance in the field. The AAO agreed with the initial finding, noting the lack of evidence demonstrating major significance despite numerous citations and presentations.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner fulfilled the criterion by serving as a peer reviewer, affirming her participation in the scholarly community’s judgment processes.
Membership in Associations:
While the petitioner was a member of several scientific associations, there was no proof that these memberships required outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Supporting Documentation
- Peer review records.
- Scholarly articles authored by the petitioner.
- Documentation of association memberships.
- Letters of recommendation and testimony regarding the petitioner’s work.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal did not present sufficient evidence to overturn the initial decision. The petitioner failed to meet the required number of evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability classification.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate extraordinary ability through the required evidentiary criteria, and the evidence provided did not support a finding of sustained national or international acclaim at the top of the field.
Next Steps:
It is recommended that the petitioner reassess the documentation and potentially gather more substantial evidence of major significance or impact within the field before reapplying.
