Date of Decision: September 24, 2018
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Research Scholar
Field: Plant Pathology
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Participation as a Judge of the Work of Others:
The Petitioner served as a peer reviewer of manuscripts for journals and conferences, such as Plant Disease and the Mid-Western Educational Research Association. This role demonstrated her recognized expertise in evaluating the work of others in her field.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Petitioner authored scholarly articles in several reputable publications, including Biology and Fertility of Soils and BMC Genomics. This criterion was met by providing evidence of her significant contributions to scientific literature.
Criteria Not Met:
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner argued that she was instrumental in the genomic sequencing of a prevalent plant pathogen and that her work was added to the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) database as a representative genome. However, the evidence did not demonstrate that this contribution was of major significance to the field. While her research received citations, the Petitioner did not show that these citations indicated a major impact on the field. Additionally, recommendation letters praised her work but did not provide specific examples of its major significance.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Not specifically addressed in the decision, indicating no significant awards or prizes were presented as evidence.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Not addressed in the decision, suggesting no such evidence was presented.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner’s work on genomic sequencing and its inclusion in the NCBI database did not establish a major impact on the field. Citations and recommendation letters highlighted her work but failed to demonstrate its major significance.
Participation as a Judge:
The Petitioner served as a peer reviewer, fulfilling this criterion by demonstrating her recognized expertise.
Membership in Associations:
Not addressed in the decision, suggesting no evidence was presented for this criterion.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Petitioner’s scholarly articles in notable journals met this criterion.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Not addressed in the decision, suggesting no evidence was presented for this criterion.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable based on the field of plant pathology.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not addressed in the decision, suggesting no evidence was presented for this criterion.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable based on the field of plant pathology.
Supporting Documentation
The documentation provided included peer review records, evidence of publications in reputable journals, and letters of recommendation from professionals in the field. These documents supported some claims but did not sufficiently establish the Petitioner’s work as being of major significance or meeting additional criteria.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal dismissed.
Reasoning:
The Petitioner did not submit the required initial evidence of a major, internationally recognized award or documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria listed in the regulations. The overall review of the submitted materials did not demonstrate the sustained acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought.
Next Steps:
The Petitioner may consider gathering more robust and detailed evidence to support the criteria that were not met. Ensuring that all documentation includes specific details about the significance and impact of the Petitioner’s contributions on the field is crucial for any future submissions.
