Date of Decision: DEC. 6, 2016
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Radiation Oncologist
Field: Sciences
Nationality: [Not specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Judging the Work of Others:
The petitioner has served as a co-editor for various publications and reviewed a book. This criterion was found to be met as the petitioner demonstrated involvement in the peer review process. - Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner authored scholarly articles in professional journals and conference proceedings, fulfilling the requirement for publishing significant academic work. - High Salary:
The petitioner received a high salary compared to other radiology fellows, indicating a level of expertise and recognition in her field.
Criteria Not Met:
- Major Internationally Recognized Award:
The petitioner did not present evidence of receiving a major, internationally recognized award. - Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Letters of recommendation provided did not sufficiently demonstrate that the petitioner made original contributions of major significance to the field. - Membership in Associations:
The petitioner’s membership in a medical association was not shown to require outstanding achievements as judged by nationally or internationally recognized experts. - Leading or Critical Role:
The petitioner’s role as a post doctorate associate fellow was not proven to be indicative of a leading or critical role for organizations with a distinguished reputation.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner received a fellowship, but it was not demonstrated that this fellowship indicated national or international acclaim or a high level of recognition.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The petitioner authored three articles in professional journals. However, only one article was shown to have been cited 59 times, which was not sufficient to demonstrate a significant impact in her field.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The recommendation letters highlighted the petitioner’s skills and training but did not provide evidence of original contributions of major significance.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner served as a co-editor and book reviewer but did not provide evidence showing the reputation or standing of these publications in the field.
Membership in Associations:
The petitioner documented membership in a medical association, but the membership criteria did not require outstanding achievements as judged by recognized experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner’s articles were published in professional journals, but the citation history was not sufficient to indicate sustained national or international acclaim.
Leading or Critical Role:
The petitioner’s role as a post doctorate associate fellow was not demonstrated to be a leading or critical role in an organization with a distinguished reputation.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The petitioner’s high salary compared to other radiology fellows was recognized, but it was not shown to be high in relation to established experts in the field.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
- Letters of Recommendation: Letters highlighted the petitioner’s skills and experiences but did not establish original contributions or a leading role.
- Evidence of Publications: Articles and conference abstracts were provided, but their impact was limited.
- Salary Comparisons: Documentation showed a high salary compared to other fellows, but not compared to established experts.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that she is one of the small percentage at the very top of her field of endeavor.
Next Steps: The petitioner may seek further legal advice to explore other immigration options or improve the quality of evidence for a future petition.
