Date of Decision: January 11, 2018
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Neonatologist
Field: Neonatology
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Authorship of scholarly articles
The Petitioner documented his authorship of scholarly articles in professional publications, such as the journals Pediatrics and Journal of Perinatology. The Director concluded that the Petitioner satisfied this criterion.
Performance in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments with a distinguished reputation
The Petitioner submitted recommendation letters detailing his role in streamlining neonatal protocols and policies for the University of Illinois Medical Center. The letters indicated that he serves as the hospital’s Section Chief of Neonatology and as a liaison to the Illinois Perinatal Center, which collaborated with the hospital to develop a perinatal center. These roles confirmed his critical contribution to the hospital’s operations.
Criteria Not Met:
Original scientific contributions of major significance in the field
The Petitioner provided copies of presentations, published works, and letters of support from individuals in the field discussing the impact of his work. However, none of these references provided concrete examples of how his work is already influencing the field. The letters and publications indicated his potential, but did not establish that he had made contributions of major significance in the field of neonatology.
Commanding a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field
The Petitioner asserted that his gross annual income of $231,255 in 2016 was well above the average salary for other neonatologists. However, evidence from the Foreign Labor Certification Data Center’s Online Wage Library indicated that this amount was equivalent to the prevailing wage for fully competent physicians and surgeons in the area, and not significantly higher. Additional salary data from various sources did not conclusively demonstrate that his remuneration was significantly high in relation to others in the field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won: (Not applicable)
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The Petitioner documented his authorship of scholarly articles in professional publications. This criterion was met as his work was published in recognized journals.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner provided evidence of his research and publications, but the letters and documentation submitted did not show how his work had already significantly impacted the field of neonatology.
Participation as a Judge: (Not applicable)
Membership in Associations: (Not applicable)
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Petitioner’s authorship of scholarly articles in professional journals was documented and recognized as meeting this criterion.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The Petitioner’s leadership roles in the University of Illinois Medical Center and his contributions to neonatal care protocols were recognized as meeting this criterion.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases: (Not applicable)
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The Petitioner’s salary, although above the national average, was not demonstrated to be significantly high compared to others in his field.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts: (Not applicable)
Supporting Documentation
Letters of support and recommendation from peers and professionals in the field of neonatology.
Copies of published scholarly articles in recognized medical journals.
Evidence of leadership roles and contributions to neonatal care protocols at University of Illinois Medical Center.
Salary data and comparisons with national averages and prevailing wages in the field.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal dismissed
Reasoning:
The Petitioner did not meet the initial evidence requirements of either a one-time achievement or documents satisfying at least three of the ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Despite fulfilling two criteria—authorship of scholarly articles and performance in a leading or critical role—he did not demonstrate original contributions of major significance or command a significantly high salary compared to peers.
Next Steps:
For future petitions, the Petitioner should provide more substantial evidence showing the major significance and impact of his work in the field, as well as a more detailed comparison of his salary with those of his peers in neonatology.
