Date of Decision: March 2, 2021
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Research Assistant Professor
Field: Biomedical Sciences and Orthopaedic Research
Nationality: [Not specified in provided document]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Participating as a judge of the work of others:
The Petitioner has peer-reviewed manuscripts for professional journals including Frontiers in Endocrinology, iScience, and Bone, satisfying the judging criterion.
Authorship of scholarly articles:
The Petitioner has authored scholarly articles in professional publications such as PLOS One, Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, and Biotechniques.
Criteria Not Met:
Published materials in professional publications or major media:
The Petitioner submitted his Google Scholar citation history and copies of articles citing his work. However, citations to his work do not satisfy this criterion as they are not published materials about the Petitioner himself.
Original contributions of major significance:
Although the Petitioner’s research contributions were acknowledged, they did not rise to the level of major significance. The provided evidence did not demonstrate the widespread impact or influence required for this criterion.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Summary of findings:
The Petitioner did not submit evidence of winning major internationally recognized awards.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Summary of findings:
Citations to the Petitioner’s work in scientific articles were not considered sufficient as they are not about the Petitioner himself.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Summary of findings:
While the Petitioner made original contributions to his field, such as identifying novel mechanisms and developing cell model techniques, the evidence did not demonstrate that these contributions had a major impact on the field.
Key quotes or references:
“The letters, however, are insufficient to confirm that the impact or influence of the Petitioner’s research contributions in this field has risen to the level of ‘major significance.'”
Participation as a Judge:
Summary of findings:
The Petitioner has peer-reviewed manuscripts for several professional journals, meeting the criterion for judging the work of others.
Membership in Associations:
Summary of findings:
Not applicable to this case.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Summary of findings:
The Petitioner has authored numerous scholarly articles, contributing to the field’s body of knowledge.
Key quotes or references:
“The Petitioner has authored scholarly articles in professional publications including PLOS One, Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, Biotechniques, and others.”
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Summary of findings:
Not applicable to this case.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Summary of findings:
Not applicable to this case.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Summary of findings:
Not applicable to this case.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Summary of findings:
Not applicable to this case.
Supporting Documentation
Peer Review Activities:
Evidence of the Petitioner’s work as a peer reviewer for several professional journals.
Scholarly Articles:
Numerous articles authored by the Petitioner and their citation records.
Recommendation Letters:
Letters from colleagues and experts praising the Petitioner’s research contributions and expertise.
Conclusion
Final Determination:
The appeal is dismissed. The Petitioner does not qualify for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability.
Reasoning:
The Petitioner did not meet the initial evidence requirements by failing to satisfy at least three of the ten criteria. Although he provided evidence for some criteria, it was insufficient to establish the required level of acclaim and recognition in his field.
Next Steps:
The Petitioner may consider gathering more substantial evidence of his achievements and contributions or exploring other visa categories that might be more suitable for his qualifications and career trajectory.
