Date of Decision: MAR. 6, 2019
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Postdoctoral Researcher
Field: Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Participation as a Judge: The petitioner served as a peer reviewer of manuscripts, which qualifies under the judging criterion.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner authored scholarly articles in professional publications, meeting this criterion.
Criteria Not Met:
Lesser Prizes or Awards: The petitioner’s fellowship was deemed a training opportunity rather than a nationally or internationally recognized prize for excellence.
Original Contributions: Although the petitioner presented publications and citation evidence, it was not sufficient to demonstrate original contributions of major significance in the field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner’s fellowship was not considered an award for excellence in the field. It was viewed as a selective training opportunity rather than a prize.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The petitioner provided articles discussing her research, but these were not sufficient to demonstrate the major significance of her work beyond her research institutions.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner’s citation record and the impact of her published work were not deemed sufficient to demonstrate major significance. Her work was recognized but not to the extent required for the EB-1 classification.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner served as a peer reviewer, which met the criterion for judging the work of others in the field.
Membership in Associations:
No specific associations were mentioned as evidence.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner met this criterion through her scholarly publications in professional journals.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The evidence provided did not demonstrate that the petitioner’s work in her roles was of major significance to the field.
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 submitted various documents, including letters of recommendation, citation records, summaries of research papers, and invitations to conferences. These documents, while supportive of her achievements, were not sufficient to establish the required criteria for the EB-1 classification.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not meet at least three of the ten required criteria. The evidence provided was not sufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of her field.
Next Steps: The petitioner may consider re-evaluating her documentation and potentially seek other immigration pathways or improve her evidence for future petitions.
