Date of Decision: October 1, 2018
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Molecular Biologist
Field: Sciences
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Judging: The Petitioner served on the editorial board for journals and as a peer reviewer of manuscripts.
Scholarly Articles: The Petitioner authored scholarly articles in professional publications.
Criteria Not Met:
Original Contributions: The Petitioner claimed to have discovered a bioactive substance that prevents bacterial growth. However, he did not demonstrate that this discovery was widely implemented, had a significant impact on the field, or was considered majorly significant by the field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
No evidence was provided to show major, internationally recognized awards.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The Petitioner provided articles citing his work, but did not establish that his work was considered of major significance in the field.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner argued that his discoveries led to further research and citations. However, he did not provide evidence of his work’s significant impact or widespread implementation in the field.
Participation as a Judge:
The Petitioner provided evidence of his role as a peer reviewer and editorial board member, which was accepted as fulfilling one criterion.
Membership in Associations:
No evidence was provided to support this criterion.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Petitioner authored several scholarly articles, fulfilling this criterion.
Supporting Documentation
Judging logbook and letter identifying competitions judged from 2008-2013.
Reference letters discussing coaching methodologies.
Media reports mentioning competitive sailing results. Membership application and regulations for the associations.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Denied
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not meet the initial evidence requirements of at least three criteria and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim as an individual of extraordinary ability.
Next Steps: The Petitioner should consider gathering more substantial and comprehensive evidence of extraordinary ability and sustained national or international acclaim in his field before reapplying.
