Date of Decision: August 3, 2020
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Physiologist
Field: Physiology
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
The Petitioner, a physiologist, sought classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had not demonstrated a one-time achievement (a major, internationally recognized award) or met at least three of the required evidentiary criteria. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed the appeal upon de novo review.
Criteria Met
Participation as a Judge of the Work of Others: The Petitioner served as a peer reviewer for research articles in journals such as Environmental Health Perspectives and Scientific Reports.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The Petitioner authored scholarly articles in professional publications, including the Journal of Endocrinology, Molecular Therapy: Nucleic Acids, and Cancer Prevention Research.
Criteria Not Met
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Petitioner claimed to have made original contributions of major significance in his field through his research and publications. However, the AAO found the evidence insufficient to demonstrate that these contributions were of major significance.
Citations: The Petitioner argued that the number of citations his work received indicated its major significance. However, the AAO determined that the citation rates, while indicative of the originality of the work, did not alone demonstrate that the work was of major significance in the field.
Impact Factor of Journals: The Petitioner noted that his articles were published in high-impact journals. However, the AAO found that the high impact factor of a journal does not necessarily reflect the influence or significance of the Petitioner’s individual contributions.
Advisory Letters: The letters of recommendation confirmed the originality of the Petitioner’s work but did not provide detailed examples of how it had been widely implemented or had a major impact on the field.
Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards: The Petitioner did not claim or provide evidence of receiving such awards.
Membership in Associations: The Petitioner did not demonstrate that his memberships required outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts.
Published Material in Major Media: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that published materials about him were in major trade or professional publications or other major media.
Leading or Critical Role for Distinguished Organizations: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that he performed leading or critical roles for organizations with a distinguished reputation.
High Salary or Remuneration: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that he commanded a high salary or remuneration relative to others in his field.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases: Not applicable.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts: Not applicable.
Final Merits Determination
The AAO concluded that the Petitioner did not meet the initial evidentiary requirement of at least three of the ten criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The AAO found that the Petitioner did not establish sustained national or international acclaim and did not demonstrate that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field. The totality of the evidence did not support a finding of the required acclaim and recognition for the classification sought.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to meet at least three of the ten criteria. The Petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field. The totality of the evidence did 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. The Petitioner should ensure that all evidence clearly demonstrates the required levels of recognition and impact in his field.
