Date of Decision: March 14, 2023
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Oceanographer
Field: Chemical Oceanography
Nationality: [Not specified in the provided document]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner provided evidence of her authorship of scholarly articles. This was acknowledged and accepted by the Director.
- Participation as a Judge: The petitioner participated as a judge of the work of others, which was also recognized by the Director.
Criteria Not Met:
- Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- The petitioner presented two original contributions in the field of oceanography:
- Revision of software for calculating hydrogen sulfide and ammonia-related parameters in marine environments, published in 2017. This contribution was cited in 15 articles, but the significance was deemed insufficient to demonstrate major impact.
- Use of artificial intelligence for data collection on ocean acidification, published in 2020. This work was cited in four articles. However, the citation data and other supporting evidence did not demonstrate the contribution’s widespread significance.
- The petitioner’s overall body of work and total citations were considered, but they did not meet the threshold for “major significance.”
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
- Not applicable or not specified in the provided document.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
- The petitioner submitted articles reporting on her research projects, published on various organizational websites. However, these were not sufficient to establish major significance in her field.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- The petitioner’s software update and AI research, while acknowledged, were not considered majorly significant in the broader field of oceanography.
Participation as a Judge:
- The petitioner met this criterion, participating as a judge of the work of others in her field.
Membership in Associations:
- Not specified or applicable in the provided document.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
- The petitioner provided evidence of her scholarly articles, which was accepted.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
- Not specified or applicable in the provided document.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
- Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
- Not specified or applicable in the provided document.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
- Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
- Scholarly Articles: Evidence provided for authorship of multiple scholarly articles.
- Reference Letters: Multiple reference letters were provided, highlighting the petitioner’s contributions and their significance.
- Citations: Citation data was included but did not sufficiently establish major significance.
- Published Articles: Reports and articles about the petitioner’s research were submitted but did not meet the required evidentiary standard for major significance.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
- The petitioner did not meet the initial evidentiary requirement of demonstrating three of the ten criteria.
- Despite contributions and recognition in her field, the evidence did not establish the petitioner’s work as being of major significance or her standing at the top of her field.
Next Steps:
- It is recommended that the petitioner gather more substantial evidence of major significance in her field and consider reapplying or seeking other relevant visa categories.
