Date of Decision: January 14, 2020
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Research Scientist
Field: Ophthalmology
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Judging the Work of Others: The Petitioner has peer-reviewed manuscripts for several journals including Current Eye Research, Molecular Vision, Journal of Ocular Pharmacology and Therapeutics, and Journal of Neuro-Oncology.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The Petitioner has authored articles published in journals such as Molecular Vision, PLoS ONE, Chinese Journal of Ophthalmology, and Acta Ophthalmologica.
Criteria Not Met:
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner’s contributions in the field of ophthalmology were deemed original but not of major significance.
Expert opinion letters provided did not sufficiently demonstrate how the Petitioner’s research had been widely implemented or relied upon by others in the field.
The Petitioner’s citation record and inclusion in review articles, while notable, did not conclusively establish a major impact in the field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Not applicable; the Petitioner did not contest the Director’s finding that she did not meet this criterion.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The Petitioner’s research has been cited in several book chapters and review articles, but the significance of these citations was not sufficiently demonstrated to meet the criterion of major significance.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The evidence provided, including expert opinion letters and citation records, did not establish that the Petitioner’s work had a major impact on the field of ophthalmology.
Participation as a Judge:
Met the criterion through peer-reviewing manuscripts for several journals.
Membership in Associations:
Not discussed in the document.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Met the criterion by authoring articles in recognized journals.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Not discussed in the document.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not discussed in the document.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
Expert Opinion Letters: Letters from experts in the field provided general praise but lacked specific examples of major significance.
Citation Records: Google Scholar and CNKI citation records were provided but did not conclusively demonstrate major significance.
Conclusion
Final Determination:
Decision: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The Petitioner did not meet the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or at least three of the ten criteria.
The Petitioner did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or that she is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of ophthalmology.
Next Steps:
The Petitioner may consider gathering more substantial evidence of the major significance of her contributions and reapplying or seeking other avenues for immigration benefits.
