Date of Decision: NOV 1, 2018
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Postdoctoral Scholar and Bioinformatics Fellow
Field: Bioinformatics
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Judging the Work of Others: The Petitioner conducted peer reviews for several professional journals, fulfilling the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv).
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The Petitioner authored numerous scholarly articles in professional journals, meeting the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi).
Criteria Not Met:
Original Contributions of Major Significance: While the Petitioner has published research articles in top-ranked journals and provided citation evidence, the documentation did not sufficiently demonstrate that these contributions were of major significance in the field. The letters of recommendation and citation evidence did not establish that the Petitioner’s work had a substantial impact on the field, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v).
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Findings: Not applicable in this case.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Findings: Not applicable in this case.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Findings: The Petitioner’s publications and citations, while significant, did not demonstrate the required level of sustained national or international acclaim. The evidence did not show that his contributions placed him among the small percentage at the very top of his field.
Participation as a Judge:
Findings: The Petitioner reviewed manuscripts for multiple professional journals, meeting this criterion. However, the reviews did not demonstrate the sustained national or international acclaim required for this highly restrictive classification.
Membership in Associations:
Findings: Not applicable in this case.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Findings: The Petitioner authored numerous scholarly articles, fulfilling this criterion. However, the publication record did not sufficiently demonstrate that the Petitioner is among the small percentage at the top of his field or has a career of acclaimed work.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to show that he performed in a leading or critical role for distinguished organizations in a way that would meet the required level of acclaim.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Findings: Not applicable in this case.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Findings: Not applicable in this case.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Findings: Not applicable in this case.
Supporting Documentation
Articles and Reviews: Various articles and reviews about the Petitioner’s scholarly work and contributions.
Recommendation Letters: Letters from colleagues and experts supporting the significance and impact of the Petitioner’s contributions to the field of bioinformatics.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal Dismissed
Reasoning:
The Petitioner did not meet the required initial evidence of either a one-time major achievement or at least three of the ten criteria for extraordinary ability. The evidence presented did not establish the Petitioner’s sustained national or international acclaim or that he is among the small percentage who have risen to the very top of his field.
Next Steps:
The Petitioner may consider gathering more robust evidence of his contributions’ significance and potentially reapplying if additional substantial evidence can be presented. Consulting with an immigration attorney for further guidance and preparation may also be beneficial.
