Date of Decision: August 9, 2022
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Neurosurgeon
Field: Neurosurgery
Nationality: [Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Participation as a judge of the work of others:
The petitioner participated as a judge of the work of others in his field, satisfying the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv).
Authorship of scholarly articles:
The petitioner authored scholarly articles in professional publications, fulfilling the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi).
Criteria Not Met:
Receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards:
The petitioner provided evidence of awards, but they were limited to institutional recognition and lacked national or international acclaim.
Membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements:
The petitioner is a member of several professional associations, but the evidence did not show that these memberships required outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts.
Published material about the petitioner:
The petitioner provided articles about his work, but they did not meet the required standards for published material in professional or major trade publications.
Original contributions of major significance:
The petitioner’s contributions were significant but did not reach the level of major significance required for this criterion.
Leading or critical role performed:
The petitioner’s roles were important within specific organizations but did not demonstrate leading or critical roles for organizations with a distinguished reputation on a broader scale.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
- Summary of findings: The awards received were institutional and did not demonstrate national or international recognition.
- Key quotes or references: “The evidence does not establish that these four awards were awarded for excellence in the field and are nationally or internationally recognized within the field of neurosurgery.”
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
- Summary of findings: The provided articles did not meet the standards for published material in professional or major trade publications.
- Key quotes or references: “The evidence does not support the conclusion that these publications qualify as professional.”
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- Summary of findings: The petitioner’s research contributions were significant but not widely adopted or recognized as major contributions to the field.
- Key quotes or references: “The Petitioner must show that he has already made a contribution of major significance, not that his contribution has the potential to be of major significance in the future.”
Participation as a Judge:
- Summary of findings: The petitioner served as a judge of the work of others in his field.
- Key quotes or references: “The Petitioner participated as a judge of the work of others, satisfying the criterion.”
Membership in Associations:
- Summary of findings: The petitioner is a member of several professional associations, but these memberships did not require outstanding achievements judged by national or international experts.
- Key quotes or references: “The Petitioner has not shown that these memberships required outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts.”
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
- Summary of findings: The petitioner authored scholarly articles in professional publications.
- Key quotes or references: “The Petitioner authored scholarly articles, fulfilling the criterion.”
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
- Summary of findings: The petitioner’s roles were significant within specific organizations but did not demonstrate leading or critical roles on a broader scale.
- Key quotes or references: “The evidence does not demonstrate that the Petitioner played a leading or critical role for organizations with a distinguished reputation.”
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not applicable
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable
Supporting Documentation
- Awards Documentation: Certificates and letters explaining the awards received.
- Media Coverage: Articles and press releases about the petitioner’s work.
- Leadership Roles: Documentation of the petitioner’s roles in various organizations and institutions.
- Research Contributions: Evidence of the petitioner’s published research and its impact on the field.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and did not provide sufficient evidence to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria for the EB-1 classification. The documentation lacked necessary details, corroborative evidence, and objective proof of significant contributions to the field.
Next Steps: The petitioner may consider gathering more detailed and comprehensive evidence to support future petitions or appeals.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
