Date of Decision: June 1, 2021
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Physical Scientist
Field: Instrument and Apparatus Development
Nationality: [Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Approved
Revocation and Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Participation as a Judge: The petitioner reviewed papers for journals, satisfying the criterion related to judging the work of others in the field.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner authored scholarly articles in professional publications, meeting the criterion for published materials.
Criteria Not Met:
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner argued that his work substantially influenced the field, but did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that his contributions were of major significance. Citations of his work were not shown to indicate major significance, and testimonials lacked specific examples of the impact.
Key Points from the Decision
Participation as a Judge
The petitioner reviewed papers for journals, which satisfied the criterion related to judging the work of others.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles
The petitioner authored articles in professional publications, meeting the criterion for published materials.
Original Contributions of Major Significance
The petitioner’s claim of original contributions was not sufficiently supported by evidence. Citations of his work and testimonials did not demonstrate that his contributions were considered majorly significant by the field.
Supporting Documentation
Judging: Evidence of the petitioner reviewing papers for journals.
Scholarly Articles: Copies of articles authored by the petitioner in professional publications.
Original Contributions: Testimonials and citation data, which were deemed insufficient to prove major significance.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to meet at least three of the ten criteria required for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability.
The petitioner demonstrated success and recognition in his field but did not establish the sustained national or international acclaim necessary for the EB1 classification.
Next Steps:
Consider gathering more substantial and relevant evidence to support the criteria not met.
Seek further guidance or legal advice on potential reapplication or other visa classifications that may be more appropriate for the petitioner’s qualifications and achievements.
