Date of Decision: DEC. 4, 2019
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Physician
Field: Pediatric Intensive Care
Nationality: Saudi Arabia
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner fulfilled this criterion by participating as a judge of the work of others under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv).
Publication of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner met this criterion by publishing scholarly articles under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi).
Criteria Not Met:
Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards:
The petitioner submitted photographs of various recognition plaques and certificates. However, these were found to be internal faculty awards and participation recognitions, not nationally or internationally recognized prizes for excellence in the field.
Original Scientific Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner claimed to have made original contributions, such as participation in the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) project. However, the contributions were not shown to be of major significance in the field. Other claims, such as establishing a national registry of DNA and implementing an electronic health record (EHR) system, were not adequately demonstrated to be original or of major significance.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The awards presented were internal recognitions from the petitioner’s university and other certificates of appreciation, which did not meet the criterion for national or international recognition.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
While the petitioner has published numerous articles, most citations were from large collaborative efforts like the GBD, where the petitioner’s individual contributions were not distinctly identified.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner’s involvement in research and development efforts, such as the national DNA registry and EHR system, was not sufficiently proven to have major significance or originality.
Participation as a Judge:
This criterion was met as the petitioner had participated as a judge of others’ work.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner authored several scholarly articles, but the impact and significance were largely due to large collaborative efforts, and individual contributions were not distinctly highlighted.
Supporting Documentation
- Photographs of Recognition Plaques and Certificates: These documents were found to be insufficient in demonstrating national or international recognition.
- Letters from Colleagues and Collaborators: These letters attested to the petitioner’s diligent efforts but did not sufficiently demonstrate major significance or originality of contributions.
- ResearchGate Scores: Provided scores were not contextualized within the broader field and thus carried minimal weight.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not meet the initial evidence requirements of either a one-time major achievement or at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. The evidence presented did not support the claim of sustained national or international acclaim or demonstrate that the petitioner is among the top in their field.
Next Steps:
The petitioner may consider gathering additional evidence that clearly demonstrates the significance and recognition of their contributions within the field. Consulting with an immigration attorney to better prepare future petitions might be beneficial.
