EB-1 Extraordinary Ability USCIS Appeal Review – Research Associate – NOV072022_01B2203

Date of Decision: NOV. 7, 2022
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability

---

Petitioner Information

Profession: Research Associate
Field: Physics
Nationality: Not Specified

---

Summary of Decision

Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed

---

Evidentiary Criteria Analysis

Criteria Met:

1. Participation as a Judge: The petitioner participated as a reviewer for manuscripts for a publication and a conference.
2. Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner co-authored 34 articles, which garnered over 2,000 citations since 2017.
3. Original Scientific Contributions: The petitioner made contributions to large-scale collaborative research projects.

Criteria Not Met:

1. Major Internationally Recognized Award: The petitioner did not receive a one-time major, internationally recognized award.
2. Sustained National or International Acclaim: The evidence did not demonstrate that the petitioner had achieved sustained national or international acclaim.
3. Leadership or Critical Role: The petitioner’s role in large-scale projects did not clearly demonstrate leadership or significant individual contributions.

---

Key Points from the Decision

Awards and Prizes Won: Not applicable

Published Materials About the Petitioner:

• The petitioner’s co-authored articles received notable attention, but his contributions among numerous co-authors were not sufficiently specified.

Original Contributions of Major Significance:

• The petitioner’s work in large-scale projects was significant but not clearly distinguished from contributions by other scientists in these projects.

Participation as a Judge:

• Limited to reviewing a small number of manuscripts, which did not indicate the required level of acclaim.

Membership in Associations: Not applicable

Authorship of Scholarly Articles:

• Co-authored 34 articles, with some highly cited. However, the most cited articles involved large numbers of co-authors.

Leading or Critical Role Performed:

• The petitioner’s roles did not clearly demonstrate significant leadership within the projects.

Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases: Not applicable

Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration: Not applicable

Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts: Not applicable

---

Supporting Documentation

1. Curriculum Vitae: Listed publications and roles in projects but lacked detailed evidence of individual contributions.
2. Google Scholar Printout: Provided citation counts for articles, indicating varying levels of impact.
3. Reference Letters: Provided general support but lacked specifics on the petitioner’s unique contributions.
4. Employer’s Letter: Described petitioner’s responsibilities and contributions to research projects.

---

Conclusion

Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and did not establish that he is among the top of his field. His contributions, while significant, were not sufficiently distinguished from those of other scientists involved in the projects.
Next Steps: The petitioner may consider gathering more specific evidence of individual achievements and recognition within the field for future petitions.

Download the Full Petition Review Here

---

Cite as Matter of G-M-, ID# 22045843

Document Name: NOV072022_01B2203