Date of Decision: February 14, 2023
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Professor
Field: Bioengineering and Nanotechnology
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner has met the criterion for authorship of scholarly articles. He has authored several significant publications in his field.
Criteria Not Met:
- Receipt of Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards: The petitioner failed to meet this criterion due to insufficient certified translations of foreign documents and lack of evidence directly attributing the awards to him.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance: The petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that his contributions were of major significance in his field.
- Leading or Critical Role: The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish his performance in a leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
- Summary of Findings: The petitioner claimed several awards, but the evidence was not properly certified and did not establish that the awards were directly attributed to him.
- Key Quotes or References: “The Petitioner initially claimed several prizes or awards, but… the evidence…possess[es] diminished value.”
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
- Summary of Findings: The petitioner did not submit sufficient qualifying published materials about his work.
- Key Quotes or References: Not applicable.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- Summary of Findings: The petitioner’s contributions, while noteworthy, were not demonstrated to be of major significance in the field.
- Key Quotes or References: “The award was issued for a particular designed device…and how that innovation would be used in real-world situations.”
Participation as a Judge:
- Summary of Findings: Not applicable.
- Key Quotes or References: Not applicable.
Membership in Associations:
- Summary of Findings: Not applicable.
- Key Quotes or References: Not applicable.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
- Summary of Findings: The petitioner has authored several scholarly articles in the field of bioengineering and nanotechnology.
- Key Quotes or References: “The Director decided the Petitioner satisfied one criterion relating to authorship of scholarly articles.”
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
- Summary of Findings: The petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate his role as leading or critical in distinguished organizations.
- Key Quotes or References: “The Petitioner initially claimed eligibility under this criterion but did not continue to assert those claims.”
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
- Summary of Findings: Not applicable.
- Key Quotes or References: Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
- Summary of Findings: Not applicable.
- Key Quotes or References: Not applicable.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
- Summary of Findings: Not applicable.
- Key Quotes or References: Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
- List of Supporting Documents:
- Certified translations of foreign documents (found deficient)
- Evidence of awards and prizes
- Publications and scholarly articles
- Letters of recommendation
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not meet the necessary criteria to demonstrate extraordinary ability in the field. Specifically, he did not provide sufficient evidence of receiving lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes, original contributions of major significance, or performing in a leading or critical role.
Next Steps: The petitioner may consider re-evaluating the evidence and addressing the deficiencies identified in the decision before submitting any future petitions. Recommendations include ensuring proper certification of all translations and gathering more robust evidence to support claims of extraordinary ability.
