Date of Decision: NOV 19, 2018
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Research Associate
Field: Nephrology
Nationality: [Not provided in the document]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Judging the Work of Others: The Petitioner conducted peer reviews for several prestigious journals, including the Chinese Journal of Pathophysiology, the Chinese Journal of Nephrology, the Journal of Kidney Disease, the International Journal of Urology and Nephrology, and the Journal of Clinical Nephrology, meeting the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv).
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Petitioner’s research has led to key findings regarding the progression of kidney disease and the development of new therapies. Letters from other researchers affirm the significance of these contributions, meeting the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v).
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The Petitioner has published articles in journals such as Molecular Immunology, the Journal of Biological Chemistry, Kidney International, and Clinical Immunology, meeting the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi).
Criteria Not Met:
Sustained National or International Acclaim: Despite meeting the initial criteria, the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim. The final merits determination requires not just the fulfillment of individual criteria but also proof of being among the small percentage at the very top of the field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Findings: Not applicable in this case.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Findings: Not provided.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Findings: The Petitioner’s contributions, while impactful, did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for the EB1 classification.
Participation as a Judge:
Findings: The Petitioner conducted numerous peer reviews, meeting this criterion. However, peer review activities alone do not automatically demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.
Membership in Associations:
Findings: Not applicable in this case.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Findings: The Petitioner authored several scholarly articles, fulfilling this criterion. However, the publication record did not sufficiently demonstrate the sustained national or international acclaim required.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Findings: Not provided.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Findings: Not applicable in this case.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Findings: Not provided.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Findings: Not applicable in this case.
Supporting Documentation
Articles and Reviews: Various articles and reviews about the Petitioner’s work in nephrology.
Recommendation Letters: Letters from colleagues and experts supporting the significance and impact of the Petitioner’s contributions to nephrology.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal Dismissed
Reasoning:
The Petitioner did not meet the required initial evidence of either a one-time major achievement or at least three of the ten criteria for extraordinary ability. While the Petitioner met three of the ten criteria, the totality of the evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or demonstrate that the Petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of the field.
Next Steps:
The Petitioner may consider gathering more robust evidence of contributions’ significance and potentially reapplying if additional substantial evidence can be presented. Consulting with an immigration attorney for further guidance and preparation may also be beneficial.
