Date of Decision: December 31, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Field of Expertise: Orthopedic Surgery
Petitioner Information
Profession: Orthopedic Surgeon
Field: Orthopedic Surgery
Nationality: [Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The Petitioner met this criterion by providing evidence of his scholarly articles published in professional journals such as Nature Medicine and the Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, satisfying the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi).
High Salary or Remuneration: The Petitioner met this criterion by providing evidence of his high salary in relation to others in his field. The Director recognized the Petitioner’s earnings with his employer in 2018 as significantly high, satisfying the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix).
Criteria Not Met:
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Petitioner claimed to have made several original contributions, including publication in high-impact journals and participation in conferences. However, the provided letters did not establish that his contributions were widely recognized or had a significant influence in the field. The letters praised the Petitioner’s research but did not provide detailed evidence of its impact on clinical practices or its adoption by others in the field, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v).
Leading or Critical Role: The Petitioner claimed to perform in a critical role for his employer. However, the evidence provided did not establish that his role was critical to the organization’s success. The letters from his employer highlighted his valuable contributions but did not demonstrate that he was essential to the organization’s standing or success, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii).
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of receiving nationally or internationally recognized awards.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The Petitioner provided articles mentioning his name but did not establish these as major media or primarily about him.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner’s contributions were not demonstrated to have major significance in the field of orthopedic surgery.
Participation as a Judge:
Not applicable.
Membership in Associations:
The Petitioner did not establish that his memberships required outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Petitioner authored several scholarly articles, meeting this criterion.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The Petitioner did not establish his roles as leading or critical in distinguished organizations.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The Petitioner provided sufficient evidence of a high salary compared to others in his field, meeting this criterion.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
The Petitioner provided various supporting documents, including letters of recommendation, articles, and evidence of his high salary. However, these did not collectively establish the required criteria for extraordinary ability.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not demonstrate that he met at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. While the Petitioner satisfied the criteria for authorship of scholarly articles and high salary, the evidence provided did not establish his original contributions as of major significance or his roles as leading or critical in distinguished organizations. The totality of the evidence did not support a finding of sustained national or international acclaim or that the Petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of his field.
Next Steps: The Petitioner may consider submitting additional evidence that clearly establishes the major significance of his contributions or explore other immigration options that may better fit his qualifications.
