Date of Decision: October 23, 2019
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Molecular Biologist
Field: Genetics
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Judging the work of others: The Petitioner has demonstrated participation as a judge of the work of others in the field of genetics, which includes peer review for several academic journals and membership on an editorial board.
- Original contributions: The Petitioner has made original contributions of major significance in the field, including the identification of genetic variants associated with traits and disease risks.
- Scholarly articles: The Petitioner has authored 29 peer-reviewed scientific articles and two book chapters that have been cited extensively by independent and leading researchers.
Criteria Not Met:
- Sustained national or international acclaim: Despite the number of citations and publications, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that these contributions have led to sustained national or international acclaim or that he is among the top percentage of his field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Summary of findings: Not applicable as the Petitioner did not claim any major, internationally recognized awards.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner’s work has been cited extensively, but many citations were by consortiums or as background references rather than highlighting the Petitioner’s individual acclaim.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner made significant contributions to understanding genetic markers related to diseases, but these contributions were not deemed sufficient to demonstrate sustained acclaim.
Participation as a Judge:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner’s role as a peer reviewer and editorial board member was recognized, but evidence did not demonstrate that these roles placed him at the very top of his field.
Membership in Associations:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner’s memberships were noted, but there was insufficient evidence to show that these memberships contributed to sustained national or international acclaim.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner authored numerous articles, and while they were heavily cited, this alone was not enough to demonstrate the necessary level of acclaim.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner held significant research roles, but there was no indication that he ran his own laboratory or held a permanent, high-level position.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Summary of findings: Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Summary of findings: Not applicable.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Summary of findings: Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
- Peer Review Work: Letters and records showing the Petitioner’s participation in peer review for top-ranked journals.
- Research Contributions: Detailed descriptions of the Petitioner’s genetic research and its significance.
- Published Works: List of published articles and their citation records.
- Recommendation Letters: Letters from independent researchers attesting to the Petitioner’s contributions and their importance.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field. While the Petitioner’s contributions are significant, they do not meet the high standards required for EB-1 classification.
Next Steps: The Petitioner may consider gathering more comprehensive evidence of sustained acclaim or exploring other visa classifications.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
