Date of Decision: January 14, 2020
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Physician specializing in obstetrics and gynecology
Field: Medical Science
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met
Judging the Work of Others: The Petitioner peer-reviewed manuscripts for the Chinese Medical Journal.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The Petitioner authored scholarly articles published in journals such as the Journal of Practical Obstetrics & Gynecology, Reproduction and Contraception, and the International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics.
Criteria Not Met
Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards: The Petitioner did not establish that the awards received, such as student awards and a second prize at a university competition, are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in his field.
Membership in Associations: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence demonstrating that membership in the Chinese Medical Association (CMA) required outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts.
Published Material About the Petitioner: The provided articles did not focus on the Petitioner but rather mentioned him as part of larger events or topics. The publications were not established as major media.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that his contributions, such as diagnostic methods and research on tubal lesions, were of major significance in the field. The letters provided lacked specific details and corroborative evidence.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not demonstrate that the awards received are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in his field.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Summary of findings: The articles provided were not primarily about the Petitioner and did not meet the standards for major media coverage.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Summary of findings: The letters provided did not sufficiently detail the major significance of the Petitioner’s contributions in the field.
Participation as a Judge:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner peer-reviewed manuscripts for the Chinese Medical Journal, satisfying this criterion.
Membership in Associations:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence demonstrating that the membership in the CMA required outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner authored several scholarly articles in reputable professional journals.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Supporting Documentation
Award Materials: Provided but did not establish national or international recognition.
Articles and Publications: Did not focus on the Petitioner and were not from major media.
Letters from Colleagues and Organizations: Praised the Petitioner’s work but lacked sufficient detail to demonstrate major significance or critical roles.
Salary Documentation: Insufficient for establishing high remuneration.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner met two of the criteria but did not provide sufficient evidence to meet at least three of the ten criteria. The Petitioner did not provide the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria. The record does not support a finding of the required acclaim and recognition for the classification sought.
Next Steps: The Petitioner must provide more substantial and specific evidence to meet the criteria for extraordinary ability classification.
