Date of Decision: July 08, 2021
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Neurological Surgeon
Field: Neurosurgery
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Judging the Work of Others: The petitioner served as a reviewer for BMJ Case Reports, fulfilling the requirement to judge the work of others in the field.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner authored several scholarly articles and book chapters in the field of neurosurgery.
Criteria Not Met:
Lesser Prizes or Awards: The petitioner’s awards, including student awards and travel grants, did not qualify as lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes for excellence in the field.
Membership in Associations: The petitioner’s memberships, including the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) and Congress of Neurological Surgeons (CNS), did not require outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Published Material About the Petitioner: The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of published material about her in major trade publications or other major media.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The petitioner’s contributions, while notable, were not shown to have major significance in the field of neurosurgery.
Leading or Critical Role: The petitioner did not demonstrate that her roles as a course instructor or conference presenter were leading or critical for distinguished organizations.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner’s student awards and travel grants were not considered nationally or internationally recognized awards for excellence.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The petitioner cited a public announcement about her receipt of an award but did not meet the requirement for professional or major trade publications or other major media.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner’s citation record, while positive, did not demonstrate major significance in the field. Comparative material showing the citation rates of other significant research was lacking.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner fulfilled this criterion by reviewing manuscripts for BMJ Case Reports.
Membership in Associations:
The petitioner’s memberships in AANS, CNS, and EANS did not meet the criteria for requiring outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner met this criterion with several published scholarly articles and book chapters.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner’s roles as a course instructor and conference presenter did not demonstrate a leading or critical role for distinguished organizations.
Supporting Documentation
The petitioner submitted membership documents, scholarly articles, letters of recommendation, citation records, and evidence of awards, but these were insufficient to meet the extraordinary ability criteria.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The petitioner’s appeal was denied as she failed to demonstrate that she met the necessary criteria for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability.
Reasoning: The USCIS concluded that while the petitioner met some criteria, the totality of the evidence did not demonstrate the sustained national or international acclaim required, nor did it place her at the top of her field.
Next Steps: The petitioner may consider gathering more compelling evidence of her impact and recognition in the field or explore other visa categories more aligned with her achievements and current career stage.
