Date of Decision: September 22, 2022
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Pathologist
Field: Medical Science, Pathology
Nationality: Brazilian
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Participation as a Judge of the Work of Others: The petitioner has served as a judge for the work of others in the capacity of a university professor and department head, examining master’s theses and evaluating candidates for faculty positions.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner has authored numerous scholarly articles, which is a common academic activity but considered under the regulatory criteria.
Leading or Critical Role for Distinguished Organizations or Establishments: The petitioner has held critical roles in distinguished organizations, including being a professor and department head at a university, as well as a founder of a laboratory testing support services company.
Criteria Not Met:
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The petitioner claimed his published articles constituted original contributions of major significance. However, the provided evidence, including citation counts and letters of support, did not sufficiently demonstrate the articles’ major significance in the field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won: The petitioner did not submit evidence of receiving major, internationally recognized awards, nor did he satisfy the criterion for lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor.
Published Materials About the Petitioner: The news articles submitted discussed the petitioner’s company rather than him personally, and were primarily local media coverage, failing to establish national or international acclaim.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: Despite the petitioner’s claim, his work’s citation numbers and the supporting letters did not convincingly establish the major significance of his contributions. The citations and influence were localized rather than demonstrating widespread acclaim.
Participation as a Judge: The petitioner participated in judging as part of his regular duties as a professor, which although recognized, did not elevate him to the top of his field.
Membership in Associations: There was no specific mention of significant memberships in associations that would support claims of extraordinary ability.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: While the petitioner has authored scholarly articles, this is routine in academia and not restricted to those at the top of their fields.
Leading or Critical Role Performed: The petitioner’s critical role in his family-founded company and other organizations did not demonstrate that his position was based on national or international acclaim.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration: There was no mention of high salary or remuneration as evidence of the petitioner’s extraordinary ability.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Support: Letters from colleagues and professionals in Brazil indicating influence within the local medical community.
Google Scholar Citations: Printout showing citation counts of the petitioner’s articles.
News Articles: Local media coverage of the petitioner’s company.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or demonstrate that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field. His achievements, while notable, were largely local or regional and did not meet the highly restrictive standards for extraordinary ability classification.
Next Steps: The petitioner may consider gathering more substantial evidence of national or international recognition, possibly reapplying with stronger documentation or exploring other visa options that may be less restrictive.
