Date of Decision: July 23, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Postdoctoral Research Associate
Field: Biophysics and Biomedicine
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
The Petitioner, a postdoctoral research associate in civil and environmental engineering, sought classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had satisfied only two of the initial evidentiary criteria, of which she must meet at least three. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed the appeal upon de novo review.
Criteria Met
Judging the Work of Others: The Petitioner demonstrated that she reviewed papers for journals, fulfilling this criterion.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The Petitioner authored scholarly articles in professional publications, meeting this criterion.
Criteria Not Met
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Petitioner argued that her journal reviews, publications in top journals, conference presentations, citations of her work, and recommendation letters established her original contributions of major significance. However, the AAO found that the Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate the major significance of these contributions.
Journal Reviews: Although the Petitioner reviewed manuscripts for journals, she only conducted two reviews prior to the filing of her petition. This was not sufficient to demonstrate an original contribution of major significance in the field.
Publications and Presentations: The Petitioner published articles in top journals and presented at conferences, but the AAO concluded that this alone did not establish major significance without additional evidence showing the impact and influence of her work.
Citations: The Petitioner’s citations were not demonstrated to be unusually high for her field. The provided citation counts and averages did not show that her work was of major significance.
Letters of Recommendation: The letters praised the Petitioner’s work but lacked specific, detailed information on how her contributions significantly impacted the field. The letters were found to be speculative about future impacts rather than demonstrating current major significance.
Membership in Associations: The Petitioner claimed membership in associations such as the Association for Computing Machinery – Council on Women in Computing (ACM-CWC) and the Association for Computing Machinery – Conference on Bioinformatics, Computational Biology, and Health Informatics (ACM-CBCBHI). However, the evidence did not demonstrate that these memberships required outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts.
Key Points from the Decision
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that her contributions were of major significance. The AAO found that her reviews, publications, citations, and recommendation letters did not establish the level of impact required.
Membership in Associations:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not provide evidence that her memberships required outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner authored several scholarly articles in reputable professional journals, satisfying this criterion.
Judging the Work of Others:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner served as a reviewer for scholarly journals, satisfying this criterion.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner 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 she is among the small percentage at the very top of her 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. The Petitioner should ensure that all evidence clearly demonstrates the required levels of recognition and impact in her field.
