Date of Decision: March 31, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Quantitative Researcher
Field: Financial Trading
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The Petitioner authored several scholarly articles published in reputable professional journals. The Petitioner’s publications included 18 research articles in top-tier professional journals and conference proceedings.
Judging the Work of Others: The Petitioner served as a peer reviewer for journals and was on the editorial board of Computers in Biology and Medicine. This role demonstrated participation in judging the work of others in the field.
Criteria Not Met
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Petitioner claimed significant contributions through journal reviews, publications in top journals, and citations of his work. However, the evidence provided did not demonstrate how these contributions were widely implemented or significantly impacted the field. The letters from colleagues and supervisors praised the Petitioner’s work but lacked specific details on the significance and impact of his contributions. The Petitioner did not sufficiently show that the number of citations for any of his published articles were commensurate with contributions of major significance. Although his citations indicated interest from the field, they did not rise to the level of major significance required by the criterion.
High Salary or Remuneration: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that his salary was high relative to others in the field. The compensation was above average but not significantly high compared to peers in the same field and geographic location.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that published materials about him were in major trade or professional publications or other major media.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate original contributions of major significance in the field. The citations and letters provided did not articulate how the contributions significantly influenced the field.
Participation as a Judge:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner served as a peer reviewer for several scientific journals and was on the editorial board of Computers in Biology and Medicine, satisfying this criterion.
Membership in Associations:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner authored several scholarly articles in reputable professional journals.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not establish that his salary is high in relation to others in the field.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Supporting Documentation
Award Materials: Provided but did not establish national or international recognition for the individual.
Articles and Publications: Did not focus on the Petitioner and were not from major media.
Letters from Colleagues and Organizations: Praised the Petitioner’s work but lacked sufficient detail to demonstrate major significance or critical roles.
Salary Documentation: Insufficient for establishing high remuneration.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner met two criteria but did not provide sufficient evidence to meet at least three of the ten criteria. The Petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field. The totality of the evidence did not support a finding of the required acclaim and recognition for the classification sought.
Next Steps: The Petitioner must provide more substantial and specific evidence to meet the criteria for extraordinary ability classification.
