EB-1 Extraordinary Ability USCIS Appeal Review – Physician – JAN032023_01B2203

Date of Decision: January 3, 2023
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability

---

Petitioner Information

Profession: Physician
Field: Medicine
Nationality: India

---

Summary of Decision

Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied

---

Evidentiary Criteria Analysis

Criteria Met:

• Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner provided evidence of scholarly articles they authored, which met this criterion.
• Participation as a Judge: The petitioner served as a judge of the work of others in their field, fulfilling this criterion.

Criteria Not Met:

• Membership in Associations: The petitioner failed to demonstrate that their association membership required outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts.
• Original Contributions of Major Significance: The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence or argument on appeal to establish original contributions of major significance.
• Leading or Critical Role: While the petitioner demonstrated involvement in critical roles, they did not establish that the organizations had a distinguished reputation.
• High Salary: The petitioner did not prove their salary was significantly high in relation to others in the field.

---

Key Points from the Decision

Awards and Prizes Won: (Not Applicable)

Published Materials About the Petitioner: (Not Applicable)

Original Contributions of Major Significance:

• The petitioner pointed to previous documents but did not provide new evidence or arguments on appeal, resulting in not meeting this criterion.

Participation as a Judge:

• The petitioner served as a judge in their field, which was recognized as meeting this criterion.

Membership in Associations:

• The petitioner claimed eligibility based on fellowship in the Academy of Physicians in Clinical Research, but the evidence did not show that the association required outstanding achievements for membership.

Authorship of Scholarly Articles:

• The petitioner met this criterion by providing evidence of their scholarly publications.

Leading or Critical Role Performed:

• The petitioner held critical roles at a hospital and a professional organization, but did not sufficiently demonstrate that these entities had a distinguished reputation.

Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases: (Not Applicable)

Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:

• The petitioner provided evidence of a high salary but did not establish that it was significantly high compared to others in the field.

Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts: (Not Applicable)

---

Supporting Documentation

1. Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
   • Documents detailing the petitioner’s scholarly articles.
2. Judging the Work of Others:
   • Evidence of the petitioner’s role as a judge in their field.
3. Membership in Associations:
   • Letter from the Academy of Physicians in Clinical Research, outlining membership criteria.
4. Original Contributions:
   • Previous submissions pointed out but without new supporting documents.
5. Leading or Critical Role:
   • Letters from colleagues and documentary evidence of the petitioner’s roles.
6. High Salary:
   • Salary details, Forms W-2, and wage data comparisons.

---

Conclusion

Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not meet the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or three of the ten regulatory criteria. The evidence did not demonstrate the required level of sustained national or international acclaim.
Next Steps: Petitioners in similar situations should ensure they provide comprehensive evidence meeting at least three of the regulatory criteria, demonstrate sustained acclaim, and clearly document the distinguished reputation of associated organizations.

Download the full petition report pdf here