Date of Decision: July 21, 2017
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Research Analyst
Field: Sciences
Nationality: [Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Judging the Work of Others:
The Petitioner reviewed a manuscript for a peer-reviewed journal.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Petitioner authored a scholarly article that appeared in a peer-reviewed journal.
Criteria Not Met:
Membership in Associations:
The Petitioner documented membership in four associations, but only two provided membership information. One of these associations, open to individuals interested in its purpose, does not require outstanding achievements. Another admits the top 15 percent of college and university students based on academic achievements alone, and does not pertain to the Petitioner’s specific field.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The evidence did not support the Petitioner’s assertion of major contributions in the field. The supporting letters were not signed and lacked detailed examples of influence beyond the Petitioner’s department.
Leading or Critical Role:
The evidence did not demonstrate that the Petitioner held a leading or critical role in a distinguished organization. Documentation of reports prepared for the Department of Mental Health did not sufficiently corroborate the Petitioner’s impact or implementation of his recommendations.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Reports of the Petitioner’s activities on the university website were not considered major media coverage or indicative of wider recognition in the field.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
A single paystub did not demonstrate a high salary in relation to others in the field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
No major, internationally recognized awards were documented.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Reports of the Petitioner’s activities were limited to the university website and did not reflect broader recognition in the field.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The evidence provided was not sufficient to demonstrate significant contributions recognized by the field.
Participation as a Judge:
The Petitioner reviewed a single manuscript for a peer-reviewed journal, which was not sufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim.
Membership in Associations:
The memberships documented did not require outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts in the field.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Petitioner authored one scholarly article, which was minimally cited and did not indicate national or international acclaim.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The Petitioner’s role was not sufficiently corroborated as leading or critical within his organization or indicative of national or international acclaim.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The evidence provided did not demonstrate high earnings relative to others in the field.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
- Manuscript Review Documentation:
Evidence of a single manuscript review for a peer-reviewed journal. - Authorship Evidence:
A scholarly article authored by the Petitioner and subsequent citations. - Membership Documentation:
Information on the Petitioner’s memberships in various associations, including criteria for membership. - Reports and Letters:
Reports prepared for the Department of Mental Health and letters from colleagues, though some were unsigned and lacked detailed examples.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not satisfy at least three of the ten regulatory criteria necessary for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. The evidence in the aggregate did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that the Petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor.
Next Steps: The Petitioner may consider gathering more substantial evidence of national or international acclaim and reapplying or exploring other visa classifications.
