Date of Decision: August 16, 2022
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Plant Pathologist
Field: Plant Pathology
Nationality: [Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Authorship of scholarly articles:
The petitioner authored scholarly articles in professional publications, satisfying the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi).
Participation as a judge of the work of others:
The petitioner participated as a judge of the work of others in her field, fulfilling the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv).
Criteria Not Met:
Original contributions of major significance:
The petitioner’s contributions, including a patented development, were significant but did not reach the level of major significance required for this criterion.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Not applicable
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Not applicable
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- Summary of findings: The petitioner’s patented banana plant development was not adopted or commercialized, limiting its impact.
- Key quotes or references: “The potential significance of a contribution does not meet the plain language requirement of this criterion.”
Participation as a Judge:
- Summary of findings: The petitioner served as a judge of the work of others in her field.
- Key quotes or references: “The Petitioner participated as a judge of the work of others, satisfying the criterion.”
Membership in Associations:
Not applicable
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
- Summary of findings: The petitioner authored scholarly articles in professional publications.
- Key quotes or references: “The Petitioner authored scholarly articles, fulfilling the criterion.”
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Not applicable
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not applicable
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable
Supporting Documentation
- Patented Development: Evidence of a patent for a banana plant development.
- Scholarly Articles: Documentation of authored scholarly articles.
- Judging Work: Evidence of participation as a judge of the work of others.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and did not provide sufficient evidence to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria for the EB-1 classification. The documentation lacked necessary details, corroborative evidence, and objective proof of significant contributions to the field.
Next Steps: The petitioner may consider gathering more detailed and comprehensive evidence to support future petitions or appeals.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
