Date of Decision: April 28, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Oncologist
Field: Medical Science
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met
Judging the Work of Others: The Petitioner participated in peer review of manuscripts for professional journals.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The Petitioner authored scholarly articles in professional publications.
Criteria Not Met
Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards: The Petitioner did not establish that the awards received are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in her field. The supporting documentation did not include objective evidence regarding the criteria used to grant the awards, their national or international significance, or comprehensive information about the awards’ background.
Membership in Associations: The Petitioner claimed membership in the Chinese Medical Association (CMA) but did not provide sufficient evidence demonstrating that this membership required outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts.
Published Material About the Petitioner: The articles provided did not sufficiently establish that they were published in major trade or professional publications or other major media. The articles were primarily about the Petitioner’s work rather than about the Petitioner herself.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The letters provided did not sufficiently detail the nature or impact of the Petitioner’s contributions, failing to demonstrate that these contributions have been widely implemented or have significantly influenced the field.
Leading or Critical Role for Distinguished Organizations: The Petitioner claimed to have performed leading or critical roles at various institutions. However, the evidence did not sufficiently establish that these roles were for organizations with a distinguished reputation or that the Petitioner’s role was critical to the organizations as a whole.
High Salary or Remuneration: The Petitioner provided letters and salary data from the hospital where she worked. However, the figures provided were inconsistent, and there was insufficient basis for comparison to show that her remuneration was significantly high in relation to others in her field. The Petitioner did not adequately reconcile the figures on different documents and did not provide a sufficient basis for comparison to other director physicians.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not demonstrate that the awards received are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in her field.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Summary of findings: The provided articles were not primarily about the Petitioner and did not meet the standards for major media coverage.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Summary of findings: The letters provided did not sufficiently detail the major significance of the Petitioner’s contributions in the field.
Participation as a Judge:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner participated in peer review for several professional journals, satisfying this criterion.
Membership in Associations:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence demonstrating that the membership in the CMA required outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner authored several scholarly articles in reputable professional journals.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate performing a leading or critical role for organizations with a distinguished reputation.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not establish that her salary is high in relation to others in the field.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Supporting Documentation
Award Materials: Provided but did not establish national or international recognition.
Articles and Publications: Did not focus on the Petitioner and were not from major media.
Letters from Colleagues and Organizations: Praised the Petitioner’s work but lacked sufficient detail to demonstrate major significance or critical roles.
Salary Documentation: Insufficient for establishing high remuneration.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner met two of the criteria but did not provide sufficient evidence to meet at least three of the ten criteria. The Petitioner did not provide the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria. The record does not support a finding of the required acclaim and recognition for the classification sought.
Next Steps: The Petitioner must provide more substantial and specific evidence to meet the criteria for extraordinary ability classification.
