Date of Decision: May 28, 2021
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Postdoctoral Research Associate in Environmental Chemistry
Field: Environmental Chemistry
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Participation as a Judge of the Work of Others: The Petitioner served as a peer reviewer for several manuscripts, including while still a doctoral student. However, this activity was deemed routine and not indicative of sustained acclaim.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Petitioner co-authored highly cited articles on pollutant detection. These contributions were recognized as significant within the field, with other researchers using her data and techniques.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The Petitioner published 32 scholarly articles, with three articles accounting for a substantial portion of citations. This activity was considered routine for researchers in her field.
Criteria Not Met:
No specific criteria were explicitly stated as not met, but the overall evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
No major, internationally recognized awards were received by the Petitioner.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The Petitioner had numerous articles, but the publication of scholarly articles is routine in academic fields and does not indicate exceptional acclaim.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner’s work on pollutant detection has been recognized as significant, but this alone was not sufficient to demonstrate extraordinary ability.
Participation as a Judge:
Peer reviewing manuscripts was not seen as a rare privilege but rather a common academic responsibility.
Membership in Associations:
Not specifically addressed.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Petitioner authored numerous articles; however, only a few received a significant number of citations, and this was not sufficient to demonstrate extraordinary ability.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Not specifically addressed.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not addressed.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
Letters from other researchers: These letters spoke highly of the Petitioner’s talents but did not establish a consensus of sustained national or international acclaim.
Charts showing percentile rankings of citations: These charts indicated that even a small number of citations could reach a high percentile immediately following publication.
Evidence of citation impact: The Petitioner’s work had a pattern of citation, but this was not consistently high across all her publications.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed. The Petitioner did not demonstrate eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not meet the high standard of sustained national or international acclaim required for the EB1 Extraordinary Ability classification. Activities such as publishing articles and reviewing manuscripts were seen as routine and not indicative of exceptional ability. The Petitioner’s achievements, while significant, did not demonstrate that she was among the small percentage at the very top of her field.
Next Steps:
The Petitioner may consider re-evaluating the criteria and evidence required for the EB1 classification, potentially seeking additional recognition or achievements that clearly demonstrate sustained acclaim and a position at the very top of her field.
