Date of Decision: February 7, 2018
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Physician of Traditional Chinese Medicine
Field: Sciences
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 served as an editorial committee member of a relevant journal, which qualifies as judging the work of others.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner authored several articles that were published in professional journals, satisfying this criterion.
Criteria Not Met:
Published Material About the Petitioner:
The submitted articles were about the petitioner’s educational history rather than his work in the field. Additional evidence provided, such as videos and articles, did not meet the requirements due to lack of proper translation, author identification, and verification of the publication’s significance.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner provided articles he authored but failed to demonstrate that these contributions were of major significance in the field. There was insufficient evidence showing the impact or wide implementation of his work.
Leading or Critical Role:
The petitioner served as the president of a medical institute; however, the documentation did not sufficiently demonstrate that the organization has a distinguished reputation.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner did not claim eligibility under the awards criterion on appeal, nor did the record support a finding that he met this criterion.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The articles submitted did not focus on the petitioner’s work in the field, and many lacked proper certification or corroborative evidence regarding their significance and publication status.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner did not provide evidence showing how his contributions have been widely implemented or significantly impacted the field.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner served as an editorial committee member, which was recognized as qualifying evidence.
Membership in Associations:
The petitioner did not claim eligibility under this criterion on appeal, and the record did not support a finding that he met it.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner authored articles published in professional journals, which was accepted as qualifying evidence.
Leading or Critical Role:
While the petitioner held a leadership position, he did not sufficiently demonstrate that the organization he led has a distinguished reputation.
Supporting Documentation
The petitioner provided various documents, including articles he authored, letters attesting to his roles, and articles about his educational achievements. However, many of these documents lacked proper translations, author identification, or corroborative evidence of their significance.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed, and the petitioner was not classified as an individual of extraordinary ability.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not meet the initial evidentiary requirements of either a one-time achievement or satisfying at least three of the ten criteria. The provided evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or establish that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of his field.
Next Steps:
For future applications, it is recommended that the petitioner provides properly certified translations, identifies authors of all submitted materials, and includes corroborative evidence to establish the significance and impact of his work in the field.
