Date of Decision: August 12, 2024
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Pharmaceutical Production Manager
Field: Microbiology and Pharmaceutical Manufacturing
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
The petitioner claimed eligibility under six regulatory criteria but did not meet the evidentiary requirements for any.
Criteria Not Met:
- Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards:
- The petitioner submitted certificates for awards such as the “Eminent Prudent India” award, a third-place paper award, and employer-issued appreciation certificates.
- The AAO determined that none of these awards were nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field of microbiology.
- Published Material About the Petitioner:
- The petitioner submitted a 2012 article in the Dainik Jagran newspaper.
- The article lacked a proper certified translation and did not meet the standards for major trade or professional media.
- Participation as a Judge of the Work of Others:
- Evidence of participation in public consultations by the World Health Organization (WHO) and United States Pharmacopeia (USP) was provided.
- The AAO determined these activities were voluntary and not evidence of being selected as a judge by recognized authorities.
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
- The petitioner submitted evidence of comments on WHO draft reports, but these did not qualify as authorship of scholarly articles.
- Performance in a Leading or Critical Role:
- While the petitioner demonstrated a leading role in a microbiology department, the evidence did not establish that the organization or laboratory had a distinguished reputation.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- The petitioner provided letters highlighting his work on microbiology projects, but these lacked evidence of significant industry-wide impact or adoption.
Key Points from the Decision
Judging Activities:
The AAO found that voluntary participation in WHO and USP public consultations did not meet the criteria for judging activities.
Awards Evidence:
The awards submitted were found to lack the necessary level of national or international recognition.
Leadership Role:
Although the petitioner held a managerial position in microbiology, there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate the employer’s distinguished reputation or the critical impact of his role.
Published Material:
The sole article submitted lacked proper certification and was deemed insufficient.
Final Merits Determination Not Reached:
The petitioner failed to meet at least three regulatory criteria, and thus the AAO did not conduct a final merits determination.
Supporting Documentation
Awards Evidence: Certificates and appreciation letters, insufficient to demonstrate recognition for excellence.
Published Material: A single newspaper article, lacking proper certification and significance.
Judging Evidence: Participation in public consultations without evidence of selection by recognized authorities.
Leadership Evidence: Role as microbiology manager, lacking supporting evidence of organizational reputation.
Contribution Evidence: Letters of recommendation, lacking detailed examples of significant contributions.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not meet any regulatory criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The record failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or recognition as one of the small percentage at the very top of the field.
