Date of Decision: FEB. 9. 2022
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Plant Pathology Researcher
Field: Plant Pathology
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Participation as a Judge of the work of others: The petitioner demonstrated evidence of serving as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: Initially met but later withdrawn by the appellate decision.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner provided evidence of authorship of scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications.
Leading or Critical Role: Initially met but later withdrawn by the appellate decision.
Criteria Not Met:
Sustained National or International Acclaim: The final merits determination concluded that the petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that they are among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Not applicable.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Not applicable.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Initially recognized but later reconsidered and found not sufficiently evidenced.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner provided adequate evidence of participation as a judge of the work of others.
Membership in Associations:
Not applicable.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner submitted scholarly articles which were considered valid.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Initially recognized but later reconsidered and found not sufficiently evidenced.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not applicable.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
- Form I-140: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker.
- Judging Evidence: Documentation supporting the petitioner’s role as a judge in their field.
- Scholarly Articles: Copies and citations of articles authored by the petitioner.
- Motion Filings: Multiple motions to reopen and reconsider, along with USCIS responses.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The petitioner’s motions to reconsider and reopen were dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner failed to establish eligibility for the requested benefit under the law and policy. They also did not present new facts or correct application of law to warrant reopening the proceeding.
Next Steps: The petitioner may consider gathering additional substantial evidence to meet the required criteria before any further motions or appeals. Legal counsel specializing in immigration law could provide guidance on strengthening the petition.
