Date of Decision: April 15, 2021
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Molecular and Cellular Biologist
Field: Science (Molecular and Cellular Biology)
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Judging the Work of Others:
The Petitioner served as a peer reviewer for various scientific journals, including Biomedicine and Pharmacotherapy, Cancer Letters, and Nutrients.
She completed 13 manuscript reviews for Biomedicine and Pharmacotherapy, 8 reviews for Cancer Letters, and 7 reviews for Nutrients.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Petitioner authored multiple scholarly articles published in reputable journals, such as Molecular Cell, Nature Cell Biology, and Biotechnology and Bioengineering.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner made significant contributions to the field, including the co-invention of a patented support system and publication in top-ranked journals. Her 2012 article in Molecular Cell, which has been widely cited, exemplifies her impactful research.
Criteria Not Met:
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The materials provided did not focus specifically on the Petitioner’s individual contributions or recognize her achievements on a national or international level.
Leading or Critical Role:
While the Petitioner held significant research positions, the evidence did not demonstrate that these roles were critical to the organizations’ success or that she had garnered significant recognition for these roles.
Evidence of High Salary or Other Significantly High Remuneration:
The Petitioner did not provide sufficient comparative data to establish that her salary was significantly higher than others in her field.
Key Points from the Decision
Judging the Work of Others:
Summary of Findings:
The Petitioner participated in the peer review process for several scientific journals, which involved evaluating the work of other researchers.
Key Quotes or References:
“The Petitioner had completed 13 manuscript reviews for Biomedicine and Pharmacotherapy, as well as 8 reviews for Cancer Letters, and 7 reviews for Nutrients.”
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Summary of Findings:
The Petitioner authored numerous articles published in prestigious journals, contributing significantly to the field of molecular and cellular biology.
Key Quotes or References:
“The Petitioner authored multiple scholarly articles published in reputable journals, such as Molecular Cell, Nature Cell Biology, and Biotechnology and Bioengineering.”
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Summary of Findings:
The Petitioner’s research has been cited widely, and her work has led to the development of new scientific methods and potential treatments.
Key Quotes or References:
“Her 2012 article in Molecular Cell, which has been widely cited, exemplifies her impactful research.”
Supporting Documentation
Google Scholar Profile:
Provided an overview of the Petitioner’s publications and citation counts, highlighting the impact of her research.
Letters from Experts:
Letters from colleagues and other experts in the field attested to the significance of the Petitioner’s contributions and her reputation in the scientific community.
Patent Documentation:
Documentation of the Petitioner’s co-invention of a patented support system, including a letter from a Chinese company discussing its commercial potential.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
Despite meeting three of the ten evidentiary criteria, the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or recognition as one of the top individuals in her field.
The final merits determination concluded that the Petitioner’s achievements, while significant, did not meet the high threshold required for the EB1 Extraordinary Ability classification.
Next Steps:
The Petitioner may consider gathering additional evidence to support claims of sustained national or international acclaim, such as more comprehensive documentation of awards, significant media coverage, and further evidence of critical roles in major projects.
Consulting with an immigration attorney specializing in extraordinary ability petitions may help in better presenting the case for future appeals or petitions.
