Date of Decision: July 30, 2021
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Postdoctoral Associate
Field: Computational Chemistry
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Motion Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Judging the Work of Others: The petitioner demonstrated participation as a peer reviewer for professional publications, including the Journal of Molecular Modeling and Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner authored articles published in various respected journals such as the Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation, Chemical Reviews, and the Journal of Physical Chemistry B.
Criteria Not Met:
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The petitioner’s contributions, including the development of a widely used molecular dynamics software program, were not sufficiently evaluated or acknowledged by the Director as meeting the criterion for major significance.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner did not provide evidence of receiving any major or lesser recognized awards for excellence in computational chemistry.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
No evidence was provided of published material about the petitioner in professional or major trade publications.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner’s contributions to a widely used molecular dynamics software program were acknowledged, but the Director’s decision did not adequately address this evidence. Letters from experts emphasized the significant impact of his work, but this was not sufficient to meet the criterion.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner successfully demonstrated his role as a peer reviewer for several scientific journals, fulfilling this criterion.
Membership in Associations:
The petitioner’s memberships in professional associations were not discussed in detail, and it was not established that these memberships required outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner provided evidence of authoring scholarly articles, which met this criterion.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner provided evidence of holding significant positions, but this was not sufficient to meet the criteria for leading or critical roles in distinguished organizations.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
The petitioner did not claim or provide evidence for this criterion.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The petitioner did not provide evidence to meet this criterion.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
The petitioner did not claim or provide evidence for this criterion.
Supporting Documentation
The petitioner submitted documents including letters from industry experts, published articles, and evidence of his contributions to the field. However, these were insufficient to meet the required criteria for extraordinary ability.
Conclusion
Final Determination:
The petitioner’s appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The USCIS concluded that the petitioner did not meet the necessary criteria for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. While the petitioner met some criteria, the totality of the evidence did not demonstrate the sustained national or international acclaim required for this classification. Specifically, the petitioner did not establish the significance of his contributions to the field and his membership in distinguished associations.
Next Steps:
The petitioner may consider gathering more substantial and detailed evidence to support his claims and ensure all filing deadlines are met in future motions or appeals. Exploring other visa categories that align more closely with his achievements and current career stage may also be advisable.
