Date of Decision: APR. 16, 2019
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Research Scientist
Field: Natural Language Processing and Speech Communication
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Participation as a Judge:
The Petitioner served as a manuscript reviewer for publications such as IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, and the Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Petitioner authored scholarly articles published in professional journals, including the Journal of the Acoustical Society of America and Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.
Criteria Not Met:
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner claimed his contributions were significant due to the citation of his work and presentation at international conferences. However, the record did not demonstrate that his work had provoked widespread commentary or received significant notice in the field.
Leading or Critical Role:
The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence that he held a leading or critical role in his employment as a research scientist or research associate.
Key Points from the Decision
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- Summary of Findings:
The Petitioner’s work, while published and presented, did not meet the level of “major significance” as required. Reference letters did not sufficiently demonstrate that his contributions were widely accepted or influential in the field. - Key Quotes or References:
Letters from professionals in the field praised the Petitioner’s research but lacked specifics on the impact and acceptance of his work.
Participation as a Judge:
- Summary of Findings:
The Petitioner served as a reviewer for several professional journals, which was acknowledged as meeting the criterion.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
- Summary of Findings:
The Petitioner’s publications in reputable journals were recognized, but this alone was insufficient to satisfy the overall requirements.
Leading or Critical Role:
- Summary of Findings:
The Petitioner did not demonstrate a leading or critical role within his employing organizations. There was a lack of corroborating evidence from employers detailing his impact.
Supporting Documentation
- Reference Letters:
- From various professionals, attesting to the Petitioner’s contributions and impact in the field.
- Published Articles:
- Articles published in renowned journals, demonstrating the Petitioner’s academic contributions.
- Conference Presentations:
- Documentation of presentations at international conferences, showing the dissemination of his research.
Conclusion
Final Determination:
The appeal was dismissed. The Petitioner did not meet the burden of proof required to demonstrate extraordinary ability in his field.
Reasoning:
The Petitioner’s evidence did not collectively establish the necessary sustained national or international acclaim. His work, while notable, did not rise to the level of “extraordinary ability” as defined by USCIS.
Next Steps:
Petitioners are advised to ensure that their contributions are extensively documented and recognized as major achievements within their field before reapplying.
