Date of Decision: April 23, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Physicist
Field: Medical Physics
Nationality: [Not specified in the document]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Criterion 1: Judging the Work of Others
The petitioner demonstrated participation as a peer reviewer for several scientific journals, including Nano Research, Physics Letters A, Nanotechnology, and Journal of Applied Physics.
Criterion 2: Authorship of Scholarly Articles
The petitioner has co-authored articles published in peer-reviewed scientific journals such as ACS Nano, Nano Letters, Nanotechnology, Physical Review Letters, and Applied Physics Letters.
Criteria Not Met:
Criterion 1: Original Contributions of Major Significance
The petitioner claimed to have made original contributions in the field of physics, including work on two-dimensional metal-insulator transitions, characterization of surface states in specific materials, and synthesis of novel alloys for thermoelectric applications. However, the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate that these contributions were of major significance. Letters from experts, while praising the novelty of the petitioner’s work, did not provide specific examples of how these contributions had a significant impact on the field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Not applicable in this case.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Not applicable in this case.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner submitted letters from experts and evidence of citations to his work. However, the letters did not provide specific examples of major significance, and the citations alone did not establish the impact required for this criterion.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner demonstrated participation as a peer reviewer for several scientific journals.
Membership in Associations:
Not applicable in this case.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner has co-authored numerous articles in peer-reviewed journals.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Not applicable in this case.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable in this case.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not applicable in this case.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable in this case.
Supporting Documentation
Peer Review Evidence: Documentation of the petitioner’s role as a peer reviewer for scientific journals.
Publications: Copies of the petitioner’s co-authored articles in peer-reviewed journals.
Expert Letters: Letters from experts in the field of physics discussing the petitioner’s contributions.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to meet at least three of the required criteria for demonstrating extraordinary ability. While the petitioner demonstrated participation as a peer reviewer and authorship of scholarly articles, the evidence provided did not establish the major significance of his contributions to the field of physics. The expert opinion letters, while praising the novelty of the petitioner’s work, did not provide specific examples of significant impact. Additionally, the petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for the classification sought.
Next Steps:
The petitioner may consider gathering more substantial evidence of extraordinary ability, focusing on contributions with demonstrated major significance, awards with national or international recognition, and other achievements that demonstrate standing at the top of the field. Exploring other immigration options that may be more suitable given the evidence available is also recommended.
