Date of Decision: October 26, 2015
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession
Pathologist
Field
Sciences
Nationality
Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision
Denied
Appeal Outcome
Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met
Participation as a Judge:
The Petitioner served as a peer reviewer for professional publications.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Petitioner submitted evidence of published scholarly articles in professional journals.
Criteria Not Met
Awards and Prizes:
The Petitioner did not provide evidence of receiving nationally or internationally recognized awards.
Membership in Associations:
The Petitioner did not demonstrate membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements of their members.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner’s contributions were not shown to be of major significance to the field as a whole.
Published Material About the Petitioner:
The provided certificates, listings, and correspondence did not meet the criterion for published material about the Petitioner.
Leading or Critical Role:
The Petitioner did not establish performing a leading or critical role for distinguished organizations.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The Petitioner’s salary was not significantly higher than the average in the field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won
The Petitioner did not provide sufficient documentation to demonstrate that the awards received were nationally or internationally recognized.
Published Materials About the Petitioner
The Petitioner’s listings in directories and certificates did not meet the criterion for published material about her work.
Original Contributions of Major Significance
The reference letters praised the Petitioner’s research but did not provide specific details or evidence of significant impact in the field.
Participation as a Judge
The Petitioner served as a peer reviewer for several scientific journals, which was acknowledged as meeting the criterion.
Membership in Associations
The Petitioner did not demonstrate that the associations required outstanding achievements for membership.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles
The Petitioner’s publication of scholarly articles in professional journals was acknowledged.
Leading or Critical Role Performed
The Petitioner’s roles were not shown to be leading or critical to organizations of distinguished reputation.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration
The Petitioner’s salary was not significantly above the average for her field.
Supporting Documentation
- Reference Letters: Praised the Petitioner’s qualifications and accomplishments but lacked specific details on the impact of her work.
- Published Articles: Evidence of publication in professional journals was provided.
- Peer Review Evidence: Documentation of the Petitioner’s role as a peer reviewer for scientific journals.
Conclusion
Final Determination
The appeal was dismissed as the Petitioner did not meet the necessary criteria for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability.
Reasoning
The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or to show that she is among the small percentage at the very top of her field.
Next Steps
It is recommended that the Petitioner gather more substantial evidence of national or international acclaim and significant contributions to her field for any future petitions.
