Date of Decision: November 30, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Physician and Researcher
Field: Hematology Oncology
Nationality: [Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The Petitioner met this criterion by providing evidence of her scholarly articles published in professional journals, including “Breast Cancer: Targets and Therapy,” “Clinical Case Reports,” and “Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia,” satisfying the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi).
Criteria Not Met:
Participation as a Judge: The Director initially found that the Petitioner satisfied this criterion. However, upon further review, it was determined that the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to show that she completed the reviews she was invited to conduct or that her teaching duties involved judging the work of others in the field, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv).
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that her contributions were of major significance in the field. While she provided evidence of her published research and citation history, the letters from experts did not elaborate on the impact of her work or how it has been widely implemented in the field, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v).
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The Petitioner did not provide evidence of receiving nationally or internationally recognized awards.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The Petitioner provided sufficient evidence of published material about her in professional or major media, satisfying this criterion.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner’s contributions, while recognized within the academic and medical community, were not demonstrated to have major significance in the field.
Participation as a Judge:
The Petitioner did not establish that she participated as a judge of the work of others in the field.
Membership in Associations:
Not applicable.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Petitioner authored several scholarly articles, meeting this criterion.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The Petitioner did not establish her roles as leading or critical in distinguished organizations.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not applicable.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
The Petitioner provided various supporting documents, including letters of recommendation, articles, and evidence of her work. However, these did not collectively establish the required criteria for extraordinary ability.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not demonstrate that she met at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. While the Petitioner satisfied the criterion for authorship of scholarly articles, the evidence provided did not establish her participation as a judge or her original contributions as of major significance. The totality of the evidence did not support a finding of sustained national or international acclaim or that the Petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of her field.
Next Steps: The Petitioner may consider submitting additional evidence that clearly establishes the major significance of her contributions or explore other immigration options that may better fit her qualifications.
