Date of Decision: September 24, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Postdoctoral Researcher
Field: Molecular Biology
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Judging the work of others: The petitioner reviewed papers for journals.
- Authorship of scholarly articles: The petitioner authored scholarly articles in professional publications.
Criteria Not Met:
- Original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance: The petitioner failed to demonstrate that his contributions were of major significance in the field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner did not indicate or establish that he has received a major, internationally recognized award.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that his published materials had a major impact in the field.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner argued that he submitted evidence of his original scientific contributions, including media reports about his research, high-quality professional journals featuring his work, extensive citations, and expert testimonies. However, the petitioner did not establish that these contributions were widely implemented, remarkably impacted, or influenced the field to a level of major significance.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner reviewed papers for journals, which was recognized as fulfilling the judging criterion.
Membership in Associations:
This criterion was not addressed or met by the petitioner.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner authored five articles in professional journals. However, the publication of these articles did not automatically establish original contributions of major significance.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner did not provide evidence to support that he played a leading or critical role in any major projects or organizations.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
This criterion was not applicable to the petitioner.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
This criterion was not addressed or met by the petitioner.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
This criterion was not applicable to the petitioner.
Supporting Documentation
- Judging and Reviewing Papers: Evidence of the petitioner reviewing papers for professional journals.
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles: Copies of articles authored by the petitioner published in professional journals.
- Original Contributions: Media reports, citations, expert testimonies, and ranking data of the petitioner’s work. However, these were deemed insufficient to prove major significance.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal dismissed
Reasoning: The petitioner did not meet the required initial evidence of either a one-time major internationally recognized award or documentation that fulfills at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. Despite meeting two criteria (judging and authorship of scholarly articles), the petitioner failed to establish that his original contributions were of major significance in the field of molecular biology. The evidence provided did not demonstrate the widespread implementation, remarkable impact, or influence necessary to qualify as contributions of major significance. Additionally, the petitioner’s citation metrics and expert testimonies were not sufficient to prove that his work had achieved the required level of acclaim and recognition.
Next Steps:
- The petitioner may consider gathering more robust evidence of major significance in the field.
- Detailed, specific, and corroborative documentation demonstrating the extraordinary impact of the petitioner’s contributions could strengthen future petitions.
- Seeking advice from an immigration attorney specializing in EB1 extraordinary ability cases may provide further guidance on how to improve the chances of approval in future applications or appeals.
