Date of Decision: April 23, 2020
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Neuroscientist
Field: Neuroscience
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Published material about him, relating to his work: The Petitioner provided evidence of significant media coverage of his research, particularly his 2014 Current Biology article, which was covered by major outlets such as the Los Angeles Times and BBC News.
Participation as a judge of the work of others: The Petitioner has been involved in peer review for scientific journals, which constitutes judging the work of others in his field.
Authorship of scholarly articles: The Petitioner has authored several scholarly articles in professional publications in his field.
Performance in leading or critical roles: The Petitioner held a critical role at his prior employer, where his contributions were instrumental to the company’s success and recognition.
Criteria Not Met:
Original contributions of major significance: The evidence provided did not establish that the Petitioner’s contributions have made a major impact on the field of neuroscience.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won: Not applicable.
Published Materials About the Petitioner: The Petitioner’s work received media coverage; however, the articles did not focus on his overall body of work or his reputation in the field.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Petitioner’s research on the Gambler’s Fallacy received media attention but did not demonstrate a major impact on the field of neuroscience.
Participation as a Judge: The Petitioner participated in peer review for journals; however, this was not deemed sufficient to place him at the very top of his field.
Membership in Associations: Not mentioned.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The Petitioner authored several scholarly articles, but the citation history did not indicate sustained national or international acclaim.
Leading or Critical Role Performed: The Petitioner’s role at his prior employer was recognized, but it did not result in significant recognition from the broader field.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases: Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration: Not applicable.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts: Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
Educational background: Bachelor of Science in Psychology, Master of Science in Neuroscience, and PhD in Cognitive Neuroscience.
Employment history: Post-doctoral neuroscientist and Head of Science at a tech company.
Publications: Authored two books and numerous articles on Medium.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not meet the high standard required for the EB1 classification, as the evidence provided did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or recognition as one of the small percentage at the very top of the field.
Next Steps: The Petitioner may consider additional evidence or different immigration classifications that better align with their qualifications.
