Date of Decision: April 4, 2018
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Physics Researcher
Field: Sciences
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Approved
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Participation as a Judge
The petitioner served as a peer reviewer for multiple journals, demonstrating participation as a judge of the work of others in the field.
Original Contributions:
The petitioner made original theoretical contributions to understanding the spin Seebeck effect (SSE), which are considered of major significance in the field.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner authored numerous scholarly articles published in professional journals, indicating recognized contributions to the field of physics.
Criteria Not Met:
None. The petitioner successfully met three criteria upon further review.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Not applicable based on the provided evidence.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The petitioner submitted articles about his work but did not provide specific evidence of publications qualifying as major media or professional trade publications.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner’s work in understanding the SSE was acknowledged as significant, with experts attesting to its impact on the field.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner met the criterion by serving as a peer reviewer for multiple journals.
Membership in Associations:
Not discussed in the decision.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner authored several scholarly articles in recognized professional journals, satisfying this criterion.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Not applicable based on the provided evidence.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not applicable based on the provided evidence.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
The petitioner provided several pieces of evidence, including:
- Letters from experts and peers discussing his contributions and the significance of his work.
- Documentation of his role as a peer reviewer for multiple journals.
- Copies of his published scholarly articles in professional journals.
- Evidence of citation history demonstrating the impact of his published work.
Conclusion
Final Determination:
The appeal is sustained.
Reasoning:
The petitioner successfully demonstrated meeting at least three of the evidentiary criteria required for EB1 Extraordinary Ability classification. The petitioner showed sustained national and international acclaim and extensive recognition of achievements in the field of physics. The totality of the evidence supported the petitioner’s extraordinary ability classification.
Next Steps:
The petitioner is approved for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. It is recommended to continue pursuing opportunities and contributions in the field of physics within the United States.
