Date of Decision: April 23, 2020
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Physician
Field: Medicine
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met
Participation as a Judge of the Work of Others: The Petitioner met this criterion through her participation in peer review for scholarly journals.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The Petitioner met this criterion by authoring several scholarly articles in professional scientific journals.
Leading or Critical Role for Distinguished Organizations: The Director initially found that the Petitioner met this criterion. However, upon further review, it was determined that the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate that the Petitioner performed in a leading or critical role for organizations with a distinguished reputation.
Criteria Not Met
Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards: The Petitioner later received a Champion Award from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in late 2019. However, this award was received after the petition’s May 2018 filing date and thus cannot establish eligibility as of the time of filing.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Petitioner claimed original contributions of major significance, supported by citations to her work, publications in top-ranked journals, and testimonial letters. However, the evidence provided did not sufficiently demonstrate that these contributions were of major significance. The citations and letters did not provide specific, detailed information on how the contributions were widely implemented or significantly impacted the field.
Published Material in Major Media: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that published materials about her were in major trade or professional publications or other major media.
High Salary or Remuneration: The Petitioner did not provide evidence to establish that she commanded a high salary or remuneration relative to others in her field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not establish that she personally received nationally or internationally recognized awards. The award from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was received after the filing date and thus cannot be considered.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that published materials about her were in major trade or professional publications or other major media.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate original contributions of major significance in the field. The letters and citations lacked specific details on the impact and significance of the Petitioner’s contributions.
Participation as a Judge:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner served as a peer reviewer for scholarly journals, satisfying this criterion.
Membership in Associations:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner authored several scholarly articles in reputable professional journals, satisfying this criterion.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that she performed leading or critical roles for organizations with a distinguished reputation.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Supporting Documentation
Award Materials: Provided but did not establish national or international recognition for the individual.
Articles and Publications: Included articles that did not consistently meet the standards for major media coverage or were not primarily about the Petitioner.
Letters from Colleagues and Organizations: Praised the Petitioner’s work but lacked sufficient detail to demonstrate major significance or critical roles.
Salary Documentation: Insufficient for establishing high remuneration.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner met two criteria but did not provide sufficient evidence to meet at least three of the ten criteria. The Petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that she is among the small percentage at the very top of her field. The totality of the evidence did not support a finding of the required acclaim and recognition for the classification sought.
Next Steps: The Petitioner must provide more substantial and specific evidence to meet the criteria for extraordinary ability classification.
