Date of Decision: November 14, 2019
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Nanoscientist
Field: Science
Nationality: Indian
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Judging: The petitioner has served as a peer reviewer for journals such as Materials Letters, Materials Chemistry and Physics, and Applied Optics, among others.
Scholarly Articles: The petitioner has authored articles in professional publications, including the Indian Journal of Pure & Applied Physics.
Criteria Not Met:
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that his contributions have been of major significance in the field. Letters provided lacked specifics regarding the impact and implementation of his work in the broader field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
- Summary of findings: No major internationally recognized awards were cited.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
- Summary of findings: Independent letters recognized the petitioner’s work but did not substantiate claims of major significance.
- Key quotes or references: The letters provided were found to be lacking in detailed evidence of how the petitioner’s work has broadly impacted the field.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- Summary of findings: The documentation provided did not sufficiently prove that the petitioner’s contributions were widely implemented or significantly influenced the field.
- Key quotes or references: “The authors’ assertions do not explain how the Petitioner’s research findings have been implemented throughout the field.”
Participation as a Judge:
- Summary of findings: The petitioner’s role as a peer reviewer was recognized and accepted as meeting the criteria.
- Key quotes or references: Peer review activities for journals like Materials Letters and Applied Optics were acknowledged.
Membership in Associations:
- Summary of findings: Not discussed or cited as criteria met.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
- Summary of findings: Authored articles in notable journals, contributing to scholarly literature.
- Key quotes or references: Articles in Indian Journal of Pure & Applied Physics and other professional publications.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
- Summary of findings: Not discussed or cited as criteria met.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
- Summary of findings: Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
- Summary of findings: Not discussed or cited as criteria met.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
- Summary of findings: Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
- Recommendation Letters: Multiple letters provided detailed descriptions of the petitioner’s contributions, yet lacked evidence of widespread impact.
- Research Articles: Citations of the petitioner’s work were present but did not establish major significance in the field.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not meet the burden of demonstrating eligibility for the classification. The evidence provided was insufficient to prove sustained national or international acclaim and major significance in the field of nanoscience.
Next Steps: Consider providing more detailed evidence of the impact of the petitioner’s work and additional documentation to meet at least three of the required criteria.
