Date of Decision: August 19, 2021
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Research Scientist
Field: Chemistry
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner has authored articles published in professional publications including Science, Nature Energy, and Joule.
Criteria Not Met:
Published Material About the Petitioner: The petitioner provided several online articles, but these articles were primarily about his published works rather than about the petitioner himself.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The petitioner claimed significant contributions, but the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate that these contributions had major significance in the field.
Leading or Critical Role: The petitioner asserted that he had leading or critical roles, but this was not sufficiently substantiated to meet the criterion.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner did not provide evidence of receiving any major or lesser recognized awards for excellence in chemistry.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The articles provided by the petitioner were about his research and not specifically about him. The Director found that this did not satisfy the criterion for published material about the petitioner.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner’s contributions were acknowledged, but the letters of recommendation and other evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate that his work had a major impact on the field of chemistry.
Participation as a Judge:
There was no mention of participation as a judge in the Director’s decision.
Membership in Associations:
The petitioner’s memberships were not discussed in detail, and it was not established that these memberships required outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner provided evidence of authoring scholarly articles, which met this criterion.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner provided evidence of holding significant positions but did not sufficiently demonstrate that these roles were leading or critical to meet the criterion.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases, Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration, and Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
The petitioner did not claim or provide evidence for these criteria.
Supporting Documentation
The petitioner submitted documents including letters from industry experts, published articles, patent applications, and evidence of his contributions to the field of chemistry. However, these were insufficient to meet the required criteria for extraordinary ability.
Conclusion
Final Determination:
The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The USCIS concluded that the petitioner did not meet the necessary criteria for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. While the petitioner met one criterion, the totality of the evidence did not demonstrate the sustained national or international acclaim required for this classification. Specifically, the petitioner did not establish the significance of his contributions to the field and did not sufficiently address the specific legal or factual errors cited in the decision notice.
Next Steps:
The petitioner may consider gathering more substantial and detailed evidence to support his claims and ensure all filing deadlines are met in future motions or appeals. It is crucial for the petitioner to address specific legal or factual errors cited in the decision notice in any future attempts. Exploring other visa categories that align more closely with his achievements and current career stage may also be advisable.
