Date of Decision: June 19, 2018
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Research Scientist
Field: Sciences
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Judging: The petitioner served as a judge of the work of others by reviewing manuscripts for professional journals.
Scholarly Articles: The petitioner authored scholarly articles published in recognized journals.
Criteria Not Met:
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The petitioner provided media reports, publications, presentations, and letters of recommendation. However, the evidence did not demonstrate that these contributions were of major significance in the broader field. The media reports primarily discussed the potential future impact of the research rather than its current significance.
Published Material About the Petitioner: The petitioner submitted screenshots from various websites discussing his research. However, these materials did not qualify as major media coverage, and the petitioner did not demonstrate that the websites were recognized in the field.
Awards and Prizes: The petitioner did not present evidence of nationally or internationally recognized awards for excellence.
Membership in Associations: The petitioner claimed membership in professional associations but did not provide evidence that these memberships required outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
High Salary or Remuneration: The petitioner did not provide evidence of earning a high salary in comparison to others in the field.
Leading or Critical Role: The petitioner did not demonstrate holding a leading or critical role within distinguished organizations.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases: Not applicable based on the field of sciences.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts: Not applicable based on the field of sciences.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won: The petitioner did not present evidence of nationally or internationally recognized awards for excellence in the field.
Published Materials About the Petitioner: The material provided did not qualify as major media coverage. The petitioner did not establish that the publications discussing his work were major trade publications.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The letters from colleagues and evidence of citations did not sufficiently demonstrate that the petitioner’s contributions were of major significance. While his work was recognized, it was not shown to have a transformative impact on the field.
Participation as a Judge: The petitioner served as a reviewer for several scientific journals, meeting this criterion.
Membership in Associations: The petitioner’s claimed memberships did not meet the criterion of requiring outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner demonstrated this criterion by providing evidence of his scholarly articles published in professional journals.
Leading or Critical Role Performed: The petitioner did not demonstrate holding a leading or critical role in distinguished organizations.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases: Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration: The petitioner did not demonstrate a high salary in the field.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts: Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
The documentation included letters from colleagues, copies of published articles, evidence of manuscript reviews, and citation records. However, much of the evidence did not meet the necessary criteria to demonstrate extraordinary ability.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal Dismissed
Reasoning: The petitioner did not meet the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or documentation that meets at least three of the ten criteria. While the petitioner satisfied the criteria for judging and authorship of scholarly articles, the totality of the evidence did not support a finding of sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of his field.
Next Steps: The petitioner may consider gathering more substantial evidence of individual achievements and acclaim within the field, focusing on personal awards, critical reviews, and documented contributions of major significance to strengthen future petitions.
