Date of Decision: January 16, 2020
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
Judging the Work of Others: The Petitioner participated as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The Petitioner authored scholarly articles in professional publications.
Criteria Not Met
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Petitioner claimed significant findings in plant pathology, such as the effects of a commercially sold product, and discoveries related to plant virus interactions and plant defense mechanisms. However, the evidence did not demonstrate that these contributions were of major significance in the field. Letters attesting to the potential impact of the work were not supported by sufficient documentary evidence.
Leading or Critical Role for Distinguished Organizations: The Petitioner claimed to have performed leading or critical roles at various institutions. However, the evidence did not sufficiently establish that these roles were for organizations with a distinguished reputation or that the Petitioner’s role was critical to the organizations as a whole.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner’s contributions in plant pathology, such as discoveries related to plant virus interactions, were recognized but not demonstrated to be of major significance. The letters provided praised the potential impact but lacked specific details and corroborating evidence.
Participation as a Judge:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner participated as a judge of the work of others, satisfying this criterion.
Membership in Associations:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner authored several scholarly articles in reputable professional journals.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate performing a leading or critical role for organizations with a distinguished reputation.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Supporting Documentation
Award Materials: Provided but did not establish national or international recognition.
Articles and Publications: Did not focus on the Petitioner and were not from major media.
Letters from Colleagues and Organizations: Praised the Petitioner’s work but lacked sufficient detail to demonstrate major significance or critical roles.
Salary Documentation: Insufficient for establishing high remuneration.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner met two of the criteria but did not provide sufficient evidence to meet at least three of the ten criteria. The Petitioner did not provide the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria. The record does 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.
