Date of Decision: October 20, 2023
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Physician
Field: Orthopedics and Traumatology
Nationality: [Nationality not specified in the document]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Judging the Work of Others: The petitioner provided services as a peer reviewer for several scientific journals in the medical field.
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner co-authored and published scholarly articles in professional publications such as medical journals and conference proceedings.
Criteria Not Met:
- Membership in Associations:
- The petitioner’s memberships, including the Turkish Educational Council of Orthopedics and Traumatology (TOPEK) and the Turkish Orthopedics and Traumatology Association (TOTBID), did not demonstrate that these associations require outstanding achievements as judged by recognized national or international experts.
- Published Material About the Petitioner:
- The submitted materials, including television segments and online articles, were about specific medical issues rather than the petitioner and his work in the field.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- The evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate that the petitioner’s contributions had a major impact on the field. The documentation provided, such as published articles and conference presentations, lacked evidence of widespread recognition or significant influence.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
- The petitioner received a 1st award at the 26th National Turkish Orthopedics and Traumatology Congress, but the significance of this award in terms of major contributions to the field was not sufficiently demonstrated.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
- The petitioner appeared on television programs and was featured in online articles, but these materials focused on medical issues rather than discussing his work or contributions in the field.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- The petitioner’s published articles had limited citations and did not show evidence of having a major impact on the field. Letters of support from experts praised his work but lacked specific details on the significance of his contributions.
Participation as a Judge:
- The petitioner served as a peer reviewer for scientific journals, meeting one of the criteria for extraordinary ability.
Membership in Associations:
- The memberships in various associations did not meet the criterion requiring evidence of outstanding achievements judged by experts in the field.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
- The petitioner co-authored and published articles in professional journals, meeting this criterion.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
- Not specifically addressed in the decision.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
- Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
- Not specifically addressed in the decision.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
- Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
- Peer review services documentation
- Published articles in professional journals
- Membership certificates and association bylaws
- Television segments and online articles
- Letters of support from experts in the field
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
- The petitioner did not meet the required initial evidence of a major, internationally recognized award or at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria. The evidence provided did not demonstrate the petitioner’s sustained national or international acclaim or that he is among the small percentage who has risen to the very top of his field of endeavor.
Next Steps:
- The petitioner may consider submitting additional evidence or addressing the deficiencies noted in the decision if pursuing further action.
