Date of Decision: August 20, 2023
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Physician
Field: Gastroenterology, specializing in Pancreatology
Nationality: [Nationality not provided in the document]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The Petitioner provided evidence of authoring several scholarly articles in the field of gastroenterology, specifically focusing on pancreatology.
- High Salary or Other Significantly High Remuneration: Documentation was submitted proving the Petitioner commands a high salary in his field.
Criteria Not Met:
- Published Material About the Petitioner: The Director determined the submitted material did not meet the regulatory requirements, as it lacked necessary details about the publication and its author.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Director’s analysis was found to be flawed, misidentifying the Petitioner’s specialty and overlooking some provided evidence, such as a comparative study on publication statistics.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petition did not provide sufficient documentation to meet the criteria for awards and prizes.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The submitted articles were not sufficiently documented with details about the authors and publication venues, failing to meet the regulatory requirements.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner’s evidence included a comparative study on publication statistics which was overlooked. The Director’s decision contained errors, including a mismatch in the listed exhibits and the provided documents.
Participation as a Judge:
No evidence was provided for this criterion.
Membership in Associations:
No evidence was provided for this criterion.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Petitioner met this criterion with evidence of authoring multiple scholarly articles.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
No evidence was provided for this criterion.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable to this case.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The Petitioner submitted documentation proving a high salary, meeting this criterion.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable to this case.
Supporting Documentation
- Comparative Study on Publication Statistics: Provided a basis for evaluating the Petitioner’s publication history, indicating a mean impact factor and number of citations per article.
- Letters of Recommendation: Included but not detailed in the summary.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Remanded for further review and a new decision.
Reasoning:
The Director’s decision was found to be inadequate, failing to properly address the Petitioner’s evidence and erroneously confusing his records with those of another petitioner. The Director must now reassess whether the Petitioner meets at least three of the evidentiary criteria and, if so, conduct a final merits determination to evaluate sustained national or international acclaim.
Next Steps:
The Petitioner may be required to provide additional evidence or clarification. The Director will issue a new decision based on a thorough review of all submitted materials.
