Date of Decision: April 26, 2017
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Radiation Oncologist
Field: Radiation Oncology
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Participation as a Judge for the work of others: The petitioner served as a judge of the work of others in her field, fulfilling the judging criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv).
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner authored scholarly articles in professional journals, meeting the scholarly articles criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi).
High Salary: The petitioner received a high salary compared to others in her field, satisfying the high salary criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix).
Criteria Not Met:
Totality of Record: Despite meeting three criteria, the petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim. The totality of the evidence did not show that the petitioner was among the small percentage at the top of her field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Not applicable in this case.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Not applicable in this case.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Not applicable in this case.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner judged the work of others in her field, but this alone did not establish her as one of the top individuals in her field.
Membership in Associations:
Not applicable in this case.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner authored scholarly articles, which was considered but did not elevate her to the top of her field.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Not applicable in this case.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable in this case.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The petitioner received a high salary, but this was not sufficient to prove sustained acclaim in her field.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable in this case.
Supporting Documentation
- Reference Letter from Medical Director: The letter described the petitioner’s selection and role but did not prove sustained acclaim.
- Updated Curriculum Vitae: Provided additional information post-petition filing, which was not considered as it occurred after the initial petition.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The petitioner’s motions to reopen and reconsider were denied.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or prove that she is among the top of her field despite meeting three of the ten regulatory criteria. The additional evidence submitted did not overcome the prior decision’s grounds.
Next Steps: The petitioner may consider reapplying with additional evidence or exploring other visa categories suitable for her qualifications and achievements.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
