Date of Decision: January 7, 2025
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Research Scientist
Field: Regenerative Medicine
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met
- Scholarly Articles: The Director determined that the petitioner satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) by providing evidence of authorship of scholarly articles.
Criteria Not Met
- Regulatory Criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3): The petitioner did not establish three of the ten evidentiary criteria. She failed to demonstrate judging activity at a probative level, original contributions of major significance, or a leading or critical role.
- Judging the Work of Others: The review certificate from MDPI and letters from mentors lacked sufficient detail and credibility. They did not show actual participation in judging specific works in the field.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance: Recommendation letters praised her contributions to employers but did not establish broader impact on the field of regenerative medicine. Citation records and publications were not shown to be of major significance.
- Leading or Critical Role: Although claimed, this criterion was not analyzed because the petitioner failed to establish at least three criteria overall.
Key Points from the Decision
- Failure to Demonstrate Judging: Evidence submitted did not credibly prove participation as a judge of the work of others.
- Employer-Focused Contributions: Letters highlighted contributions valuable to employers but did not prove major significance to the field.
- Insufficient Citation Impact: Publications and citations were acknowledged but not shown to represent field-wide recognition or influence.
- Restrictive Nature of EB-1: USCIS emphasized that EB-1 is reserved for a small percentage at the very top of the field, which the petitioner did not establish.
Final Merits Determination
Because the petitioner did not demonstrate at least three regulatory criteria, she did not meet the initial evidentiary threshold. Therefore, USCIS dismissed the appeal without a full final merits determination. Even when considered in totality, the evidence did not show sustained national or international acclaim or recognition at the very top of the field.
Supporting Documentation
- Recommendation Letters: Provided by mentors and colleagues, but not sufficient to establish original contributions of major significance.
- Review Certificate: Submitted from MDPI but lacking detailed probative value.
- Google Scholar Profile: Publication and citation record provided but not persuasive of major significance.
- Conference Participation: Evidence submitted but not probative of contributions of major significance.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not meet three evidentiary criteria and failed to establish sustained acclaim or recognition at the top of her field.
