Date of Decision: December 16, 2024
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Pharmacist
Field: Healthcare and Pharmaceutical Sciences
Nationality: Brazilian
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
The petitioner sought to demonstrate eligibility under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) by satisfying at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. Upon review, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) determined that the petitioner did not meet the necessary criteria to establish eligibility.
Criteria Met
- None:
The petitioner failed to satisfy the evidentiary standards for any of the criteria.
Criteria Not Met
- Membership in Associations:
The petitioner submitted evidence of membership in two Brazilian pharmaceutical associations, but it was not demonstrated that these memberships required outstanding achievements as judged by recognized national or international experts in the field. - Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner submitted summaries of four co-authored articles from 2016. However, while these articles were confirmed to be published, there was no evidence that the journals qualified as major trade publications in the field. - Display of Work at Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
The petitioner provided photos of events, including roundtables and workshops, between 2018 and 2022. However, these events did not qualify as artistic exhibitions or showcases as required by the regulations. - Performance in Leading or Critical Roles:
The petitioner did not adequately demonstrate that she performed in leading or critical roles for organizations with distinguished reputations.
Key Points from the Decision
- Membership Evidence: The petitioner failed to demonstrate that membership in associations was based on outstanding achievements judged by experts.
- Authorship Evidence: Although articles were published, the petitioner did not provide evidence that the journals were major trade publications.
- Exhibition Evidence: Events attended by the petitioner did not qualify as artistic exhibitions or showcases.
- Role Evidence: Insufficient evidence was provided to show leading or critical roles in organizations with distinguished reputations.
Final Merits Determination
The AAO concluded that the petitioner did not meet at least three regulatory criteria and therefore did not demonstrate extraordinary ability or sustained national or international acclaim.
Supporting Documentation
Membership Evidence: Letters and ID card from Brazilian pharmaceutical associations.
Authorship Evidence: Summaries of four co-authored articles from 2016.
Exhibition Evidence: Photographs of roundtables and workshops.
Role Evidence: General statements regarding professional roles without sufficient supporting documentation.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner failed to meet the evidentiary requirements for at least three regulatory criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The evidence provided did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or position the petitioner among the very top of her field.
