Date of Decision: DEC. 21, 2015
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Physician
Field: Sciences
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The Petitioner submitted evidence including an article titled, “Evidence in [Publication Name],” establishing that she meets this criterion.
Criteria Not Met:
- Participation as a Judge: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of formal participation as a judge of the work of others in her field.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance: The evidence provided, including citation counts and media references, did not demonstrate that the Petitioner’s contributions rose to the level of major significance in her field.
- Leading or Critical Role: The Petitioner did not establish her eligibility, and the criterion was abandoned on appeal.
- Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases: The Petitioner initially relied on conference presentations but abandoned this criterion on appeal.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
- Summary of findings: Not applicable, as the Petitioner did not claim any specific awards or prizes that were accepted by the reviewing authorities.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
- Summary of findings: The Petitioner referenced articles and releases from sources such as [Publication Name] and [Another Source]. However, these did not mention her by name or sufficiently attribute the study’s credit to her.
- Key quotes or references: “The study on heart disease prevention in firefighters has garnered some attention, but it did not mention the Petitioner’s association with the study.”
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- Summary of findings: The Petitioner’s claimed contributions, such as confirming results obtained in France, were not deemed as original contributions of major significance.
- Key quotes or references: “Dr. [Name] did not explain how confirming results obtained in France is an original contribution of major significance.”
Participation as a Judge:
- Summary of findings: The Petitioner provided letters from experts but did not document actual judging participation.
- Key quotes or references: “The Director’s favorable determination on this issue is hereby withdrawn.”
Membership in Associations:
- Summary of findings: Not applicable, as the Petitioner did not claim this criterion.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
- Summary of findings: The Petitioner met this criterion with evidence of published scholarly articles.
- Key quotes or references: “The Petitioner has submitted sufficient evidence, including the article titled, ‘[Article Title].'”
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
- Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence for this criterion, and it was abandoned on appeal.
- Key quotes or references: “The Petitioner has not submitted qualifying material under this criterion.”
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
- Summary of findings: Not applicable, as this criterion was abandoned on appeal.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
- Summary of findings: Not applicable, as this criterion was not claimed or evidenced.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
- Summary of findings: Not applicable, as this criterion was not claimed or evidenced.
Supporting Documentation
- Cover Letter: Addressed initial criteria and provided a summary of the Petitioner’s achievements.
- Letters from Experts: Provided opinions but lacked sufficient details on contributions of major significance.
- Published Articles: Included articles that listed the Petitioner as an author but did not attribute major significance to her work.
- Citation Records: Provided citation counts that were insufficient to demonstrate major impact.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not satisfy the evidentiary criteria required for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. The evidence provided did not demonstrate that she achieved sustained national or international acclaim or that her contributions were of major significance in her field.
Next Steps: It is recommended that the Petitioner review the criteria for extraordinary ability classification and gather more substantial and directly relevant evidence if considering future petitions.
