Date of Decision: OCT. 15, 2019
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Postdoctoral Fellow
Field: Sciences
Nationality: [Not specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Scholarly Articles: The petitioner satisfied the criterion for scholarly articles as per 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi).
Criteria Not Met:
Published Material: The submitted articles did not reflect material about the petitioner in professional or major trade publications or other major media. The articles from lescienze.com, livescience.com, space.com, and sciencenode.org were about a new theory by scientists from a laboratory and did not mention the petitioner prominently.
Judging: The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence that he performed manuscript reviews for journals such as Physical Review Letters and Computer Physics Communications. The documentation lacked pertinent identifying information.
Original Contributions: The petitioner did not demonstrate original contributions of major significance in his field. Although he presented new evidence, it was not sufficient to overturn the previous decision.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Not applicable
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Summary of findings: The articles submitted were not about the petitioner but rather about the research team or organization.
Key quotes or references: None provided.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Summary of findings: The petitioner’s contributions were not deemed to be of major significance in the field.
Key quotes or references: None provided.
Participation as a Judge:
Summary of findings: The petitioner failed to establish that he performed manuscript reviews.
Key quotes or references: None provided.
Membership in Associations:
Not applicable
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Summary of findings: The petitioner satisfied this criterion.
Key quotes or references: None provided.
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
- Recommendation Letters: Letters attesting to the petitioner’s contributions and citations.
- Google Scholar Citations: Documentation showing the petitioner’s citation record.
- Judging Evidence: Documentation from journals confirming the petitioner’s manuscript reviews.
- Published Articles: Screenshots and web statistics of articles mentioning the petitioner.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Denied
Reasoning: The petitioner did not meet at least three of the evidentiary criteria required for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. The new evidence submitted on motion did not overcome the original decision.
Next Steps: The petitioner may consider submitting additional evidence or addressing the specific deficiencies highlighted in the decision.
