Date of Decision: May 23, 2024
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Research Scientist
Field: Molecular Biology and Medical Research
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Judging the Work of Others: Evidence demonstrated that the petitioner served as a peer reviewer for multiple international journals.
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner authored articles published in respected journals, including several first-author publications.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance: The petitioner provided documentation of significant contributions in medical research.
Final Merits Determination:
Despite meeting the initial criteria, the petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that they are among the small percentage at the very top of their field.
Key Points from the Decision
Judging the Work of Others:
The petitioner documented participation as a peer reviewer for 15 international journals. However, the significance of these journals and the petitioner’s role in the peer review process was not sufficiently established to indicate sustained acclaim.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner’s work included 14 publications with a total of 960 citations. While this demonstrates recognition, the evidence did not establish that the citation impact placed the petitioner among the very top of their field.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner submitted expert opinion letters and evidence of research contributions in hypertension and inflammation. However, the documentation lacked sufficient corroborating evidence to establish these contributions as majorly significant or internationally recognized.
Altmetric Attention and Citations:
The petitioner presented evidence of Altmetric scores for a recent publication. However, reliance on social media and non-peer-reviewed mentions as indicators of significance was deemed insufficient.
Reference Letters:
The reference letters supported the petitioner’s contributions but failed to articulate how these contributions placed the petitioner at the top of their field.
Supporting Documentation
Peer Review Activities: Provided but lacked evidence of exceptional recognition for this work.
Scholarly Publications: Authored articles and citation metrics submitted.
Expert Letters: General praise provided but insufficiently detailed regarding the petitioner’s extraordinary standing.
Altmetric Scores: Submitted but not deemed reliable indicators of extraordinary ability.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner met three evidentiary criteria but failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim. The record does not support the conclusion that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of their field.
