Date of Decision: November 30, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Field of Expertise: Applied Physics
Petitioner Information
Profession: Postdoctoral Research Fellow
Field: Applied Physics
Nationality: [Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Judging the Work of Others: The Petitioner provided evidence of peer review activities for multiple journals, including detailed information on the number of journals for which he served as a reviewer and the total number of reviews conducted. This satisfied the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv).
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Petitioner’s original contributions were demonstrated through multiple expert opinion letters, awards for his research, citations of his work, and media coverage of his publications. This satisfied the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v).
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The Petitioner authored scholarly articles published in professional journals, including objective evidence of publication rates, citation history, and impact factors of the journals. This satisfied the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi).
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The Petitioner did not provide evidence of receiving nationally or internationally recognized awards.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The Petitioner provided sufficient evidence of published material about his work in major media, satisfying this criterion.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner’s contributions included published research, citations, and media coverage, which were found to have significant impact in the field.
Participation as a Judge:
The Petitioner participated as a peer reviewer for multiple journals, meeting this criterion.
Membership in Associations:
Not applicable.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Petitioner authored several scholarly articles, meeting this criterion.
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
The Petitioner provided various supporting documents, including letters of recommendation, research awards, citation records, and media articles about his work. These collectively established the required criteria for extraordinary ability.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was sustained and remanded for further review.
Reasoning: The Director’s decision was withdrawn due to the insufficient evaluation of the Petitioner’s evidence. The Director is required to re-evaluate the totality of the evidence, considering the Petitioner’s sustained national or international acclaim and his standing at the very top of his field. The Petitioner demonstrated that he met at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability, and the new decision should reflect a comprehensive review of all evidence provided.
Next Steps: The matter is remanded to the Director for a new decision consistent with the analysis provided.
