Date of Decision: January 7, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Postdoctoral Associate
Field: Materials Chemistry
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met
Judging the Work of Others: The Petitioner met this criterion by peer-reviewing manuscripts for several journals, including the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, Journal of the Electrochemical Society, and Materials Today Chemistry.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The Petitioner authored several scholarly articles published in reputable journals, such as the Journal of Materials Chemistry, Nano Research, Chemical Communications, and The Journal of Physical Chemistry C.
Criteria Not Met
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Petitioner claimed to have made original contributions of major significance in the field, supported by published research, citation records, and letters from experts. However, the evidence provided did not sufficiently demonstrate how these contributions were widely implemented or significantly impacted the field. The letters praised the Petitioner’s research but lacked specific examples of major significance and widespread impact.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Summary of findings: 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.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate original contributions of major significance in the field. The letters lacked specific details on how the contributions significantly influenced the field.
Participation as a Judge:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner served as a peer reviewer for several scientific journals, 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: No evidence provided.
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 for the individual.
Articles and Publications: Included articles that did not meet the standards for major media coverage or were not primarily about the Beneficiary.
Letters from Colleagues and Organizations: Praised the Beneficiary’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 criteria but 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 the 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.
