Date of Decision: JUL 28, 2022
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: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Participation as a Judge of the Work of Others: The petitioner has participated in peer reviews for scientific journals, which qualifies under this criterion.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner has authored several scholarly articles published in professional journals.
Criteria Not Met:
Original Contributions of Major Significance: While the petitioner submitted evidence of research contributions, the documentation did not demonstrate that these contributions had a significant impact on the broader field of neuroscience.
Key Points from the Decision
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner claimed significant contributions to neuroscience, particularly in replicating phenomena related to a specific disease in a model. However, the evidence presented was insufficient to establish that these contributions had been widely implemented or had a remarkable impact on the field. Letters of support did not provide adequate independent and objective evidence of the major significance of the contributions.
Letters of Recommendation:
Several letters praised the petitioner’s work but did not specify how his research had been unusually influential or had substantially impacted the field. Some letters mentioned the potential future impact of the petitioner’s research, which does not meet the requirement for current major significance.
Supporting Documentation
- Letters from Experts: Detailed the petitioner’s research achievements and potential impacts but lacked specific evidence of major significance in the field.
- Scholarly Articles: Mentioned contributions to the understanding of certain diseases but did not demonstrate significant citation or influence.
- Citation Metrics: The petitioner’s Google Scholar profile indicated 27 citations, including self-citations, which was considered moderate and insufficient to prove major significance.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed. The petitioner did not meet the initial evidence requirements of either a one-time major achievement or three of the lesser criteria necessary for the EB-1 classification.
Reasoning:
The petitioner failed to demonstrate that his research contributions had a substantial and sustained impact on the field of neuroscience. The letters of support and other submitted evidence did not provide sufficient proof of extraordinary ability at the level required for this highly restrictive visa classification.
Next Steps:
The petitioner may consider submitting additional evidence or reapplying with stronger documentation of his contributions and their impact on the field. Consulting with an immigration attorney to strengthen the case may be beneficial.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
Cite as Matter of G-M-, ID# 19905221
JUL282022_03B2203
