Date of Decision: December 13, 2023
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Research Geophysicist
Field: Seismic Modeling, Imaging, and Anisotropy
Nationality: [Nationality Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Approved
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Judging the Work of Others:
The petitioner provided evidence of completed independent requests to review manuscripts for professional publications, demonstrating his expertise and recognition in his field.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner submitted expert recommendation letters and his scholarly articles, along with citations to his work, indicating his original contributions to the field of seismic modeling and imaging.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner presented his scholarly articles that have been cited by others, showcasing his significant contributions to the field.
Criteria Not Met:
The Director’s decision did not specify which criteria were not met, leading to the remand for further analysis.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner did not initially indicate or establish that he has received a major, internationally recognized award.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The petitioner provided articles citing his work, which were considered as evidence for his original contributions and scholarly authorship.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The expert recommendation letters and citations to the petitioner’s work highlighted his significant contributions to seismic modeling, imaging, and anisotropy.
Participation as a Judge:
Evidence of the petitioner serving as a book editor and reviewing manuscripts for professional publications was submitted.
Membership in Associations:
No specific information was provided about the petitioner’s memberships in associations.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner presented his scholarly articles with evidence of citations, demonstrating his recognized contributions to the field.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner submitted evidence in support of his claim to meet the criteria for leading or critical roles in his field.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable to this case.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The petitioner provided documentation of his high salary as part of the supplemental evidence.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable to this case.
Supporting Documentation
- Completed Independent Requests to Review Manuscripts: Demonstrates recognition of expertise.
- Expert Recommendation Letters: Highlights the petitioner’s significant contributions.
- Scholarly Articles and Citations: Shows the impact of the petitioner’s work.
- Evidence of Patents: Includes two granted and three pending patents.
- Google Scholar Profile: Indicates 453 total citations to the petitioner’s published work.
- W-2 Forms: Provides evidence of employment and salary.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Remanded
Reasoning:
The Director did not provide specific reasons for the initial revocation or adequately address the evidence submitted by the petitioner. The case is remanded for a new decision with detailed analysis and consideration of all provided evidence.
Next Steps:
The petitioner should prepare for the issuance of a new Notice of Intent to Revoke (NOIR) by the Director, which will require detailed evidence and explanation of the grounds for revocation. The petitioner should submit additional clarifying evidence if necessary.
