Date of Decision: July 27, 2023
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Radiation Oncology Physician
Field: Radiation Oncology
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The beneficiary has authored research articles and book chapters, with a significant number of citations.
- Participation as a Judge: The beneficiary has served as an editor for scholarly articles, which involves peer review and evaluation of academic content.
Criteria Not Met:
- Membership in Associations: The beneficiary’s memberships did not meet the requirement of being judged by recognized experts and requiring outstanding achievements.
- Published Material About the Petitioner: Articles provided were either authored by the beneficiary or did not meet the standard of being about the beneficiary in major media.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance: The beneficiary’s contributions, although original, were not demonstrated to be of major significance in the field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won: Not applicable
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
- The articles submitted did not focus on the beneficiary and were often marketing materials or articles authored by the beneficiary, failing to meet the criterion.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- The beneficiary’s work, although significant, was not shown to have a major impact on the field. The citation numbers and recommendation letters did not sufficiently demonstrate the required level of significance.
Participation as a Judge:
- The beneficiary’s editorial roles were acknowledged but did not elevate to the level of extraordinary ability.
Membership in Associations:
- Memberships provided did not meet the rigorous standards required for this criterion.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
- The beneficiary met this criterion through her publications in reputable journals.
Leading or Critical Role Performed: Not applicable
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases: Not applicable
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration: Not applicable
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts: Not applicable
Supporting Documentation
- Recommendation Letters: Provided by experts in the field, these letters highlighted the beneficiary’s skills but lacked detailed examples of major significance.
- Published Articles: While numerous, these articles did not demonstrate major significance as required by the EB1 criteria.
- Membership Documentation: Lacked evidence of outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning:
- The beneficiary did not meet the required number of criteria to demonstrate extraordinary ability.
- The evidence provided did not establish the beneficiary’s work as being of major significance in the field.
- The memberships and published materials did not meet the rigorous standards set by the USCIS.
Next Steps:
- The petitioner may consider gathering more substantial evidence of the beneficiary’s impact and reapplying.
- Seeking legal advice to better understand the criteria and prepare a stronger petition might be beneficial.
