Date of Decision: September 29, 2023
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Nuclear Medicine Physician
Field: Nuclear Medicine
Nationality: [Nationality not provided]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner provided evidence of his authorship of scholarly articles, which were published in reputable journals related to nuclear medicine. The Director’s determination that this criterion was met was supported by the documentation provided.
- Leading or Critical Role: The petitioner held a leading role as a director of the nuclear medicine department in a distinguished U.S. radiology center. The evidence demonstrated his significant contributions and responsibilities in this position, supporting his claim of performing a leading or critical role.
- High Salary or Remuneration: The petitioner demonstrated that he commanded a high salary in comparison to others in his field. He provided an employment agreement indicating a substantial salary with guaranteed increases and additional documentation, such as his IRS Form W-2, which supported his claim.
Criteria Not Met:
- Published Material About the Petitioner: The petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence of published material about him and his work in professional publications or major media. The Director found the evidence lacking in this area.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance: The petitioner did not provide adequate evidence to establish that he made original contributions of major significance in the field of nuclear medicine. The documentation was not convincing enough to meet this criterion.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won: Not applicable
Published Materials About the Petitioner: The petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence of published material about him in professional publications or major media.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The documentation provided was insufficient to establish original contributions of major significance in the field.
Participation as a Judge: The petitioner initially claimed this criterion but did not pursue it further.
Membership in Associations: Not applicable
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner met this criterion by providing substantial evidence of his scholarly articles in reputable journals.
Leading or Critical Role Performed: The petitioner demonstrated his critical role as a director in a distinguished U.S. radiology center.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases: Not applicable
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration: The petitioner met this criterion by providing comprehensive evidence of his high salary in relation to others in the field.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts: Not applicable
Supporting Documentation
- Employment Agreement: Detailed the petitioner’s role and salary structure, supporting his claim of commanding a high salary.
- IRS Form W-2: Provided evidence of the petitioner’s earnings, further supporting the high salary criterion.
- Letters from Employer: Confirmed the petitioner’s employment and his role as a department director.
- Scholarly Articles: Provided evidence of the petitioner’s publications in reputable journals.
- Comparative Wage Data: Supported the claim of high remuneration in relation to others in the field.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The Director’s decision was withdrawn, and the matter was remanded for a new decision. The petitioner met the initial evidence requirements of at least three criteria but further evaluation is needed to determine sustained national or international acclaim.
Reasoning: The petitioner successfully demonstrated eligibility under three criteria: authorship of scholarly articles, leading or critical role, and high salary. However, the final merits determination requires further evaluation to establish if the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of his field.
Next Steps: The Director should re-evaluate the evidence, including new submissions on appeal, and make a final merits determination.
