Date of Decision: January 29, 2021
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Oncologist
Field: Oncology
Nationality: [Not specified in the document]
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 has served as a peer reviewer for various medical journals, evaluating the work of other professionals in his field.
Authorship of scholarly articles:
The petitioner has authored multiple scholarly articles published in reputable medical journals.
Criteria Not Met:
Original contributions of major significance:
The petitioner provided evidence of original contributions in cancer research, but the documentation did not sufficiently demonstrate that these contributions had a major impact on the field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Not applicable as the petitioner did not provide evidence of major, internationally recognized awards.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Not specifically claimed, but the petitioner provided evidence of published scholarly articles.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner made significant contributions to cancer research, including studying the efficacy of certain treatments and identifying predictive markers for cancer. However, the evidence did not establish these contributions as having major significance in the field.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner has participated as a judge of others’ work by serving as a peer reviewer for medical journals, fulfilling one of the evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability.
Membership in Associations:
Not applicable as this criterion was not claimed or documented by the petitioner.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner has authored numerous scholarly articles, meeting the criterion for authorship in the field of oncology.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Not applicable as this criterion was not claimed or documented by the petitioner.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not applicable as this criterion was not claimed or documented by the petitioner.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable as this criterion was not relevant to the petitioner’s field.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Recommendation: Provided support but lacked detailed evidence of major significance.
Research Papers and Citations: Demonstrated originality but not widespread impact.
Peer Review Activities: Showed involvement in the field but did not establish major significance.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal Dismissed
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not meet the requirement of satisfying at least three of the ten criteria for extraordinary ability.
The evidence provided did not establish the necessary level of sustained national or international acclaim or recognition at the top of the field.
Next Steps:
The petitioner may consider gathering additional, more substantial evidence of extraordinary ability and recognition.
Consulting with an immigration attorney to better document and present qualifications could improve future petitions.
