Date of Decision: May 29, 2020
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Postdoctoral Optoelectronics Researcher
Field: Electrical and Computer Engineering
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Judging: The petitioner reviewed papers for journals, fulfilling the criterion for participation as a judge.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner authored scholarly articles in professional publications, satisfying this criterion.
Criteria Not Met:
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner claimed to have made significant contributions based on citations of his work and patents. However, he did not adequately demonstrate how these contributions were of major significance in the field.
The petitioner’s highest-cited articles did not sufficiently show the field’s recognition of their major significance.
Patents, although original, lacked evidence of being widely adopted or having significant impact in the field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won
Not applicable as the petitioner did not submit evidence of major, internationally recognized awards.
Published Materials About the Petitioner
Not specifically addressed, as the focus was on original contributions and patents.
Original Contributions of Major Significance
The petitioner did not establish that his contributions were of major significance in the field. The provided evidence (citations, patents) did not demonstrate significant impact or widespread adoption in the field.
Participation as a Judge
The petitioner reviewed papers for journals, which met the criterion for judging.
Membership in Associations
Not specifically addressed in the decision.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles
The petitioner authored scholarly articles, meeting the relevant criterion.
Leading or Critical Role Performed
Not specifically addressed in the decision.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration
Not specifically addressed in the decision.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
Judging: Evidence of the petitioner reviewing papers for journals.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: Evidence of published scholarly articles.
Original Contributions: Citations from Google Scholar and Clarivate Analytics data, patents, and recommendation letters.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal dismissed. The petitioner did not meet the required evidentiary criteria to establish eligibility for the EB1 Extraordinary Ability classification.
Reasoning: The petitioner failed to demonstrate original contributions of major significance and did not satisfy at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. The overall record did not support a finding of sustained national or international acclaim.
Next Steps: The petitioner may consider gathering additional evidence of major significance and impact in the field and reapplying with a stronger case or exploring other visa categories that might be more suitable based on their qualifications and achievements.
