Date of Decision: October 8, 2021
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Research Scientist
Field: Robotics
Nationality: [Not Provided]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Participation as a Judge: The Petitioner provided evidence of participation as a judge of the work of others in her field. This included peer review of manuscripts for scientific journals and conferences in robotics.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The Petitioner has published scholarly work in IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters and in international conferences related to robotics.
Criteria Not Met:
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Petitioner claimed contributions to a robotics project, but the evidence did not demonstrate these contributions as widely implemented, significantly impactful, or of major significance. The evidence of dataset downloads and citations was insufficient to establish the claimed significance.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won: (Not applicable)
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The media coverage from outlets like BBC, Reuters, and Science Daily acknowledged the potential and originality of the Petitioner’s work but did not establish that it had a major impact in the field.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner provided letters from experts and evidence of media attention, but this did not sufficiently articulate the major impact or widespread implementation of her contributions in the field of robotics.
Participation as a Judge:
The Petitioner documented peer review activities for scientific journals and conferences.
Membership in Associations: (Not discussed)
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Petitioner’s scholarly articles were published in reputable journals and conferences but had limited citations, which did not demonstrate major significance.
Leading or Critical Role Performed: (Not discussed)
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases: (Not applicable)
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration: (Not discussed)
Commercial successes in the Performing Arts: (Not applicable)
Supporting Documentation
Datasets: The Petitioner submitted datasets to a public repository, which had substantial downloads but lacked context regarding the significance of the download numbers.
Publications and Citations: The Petitioner’s Google Scholar profile showed limited citations of her work, which did not substantiate a major impact in her field.
Media Coverage: Articles from major media outlets discussed the Petitioner’s project but focused on its potential rather than established impact.
Expert Letters: Letters from professors and researchers recognized the originality and potential impact of the Petitioner’s work but lacked specific details on how her contributions were of major significance.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Denied
Reasoning:
The Petitioner did not satisfy at least three of the ten regulatory criteria required for the EB1 extraordinary ability classification. The evidence provided did not demonstrate that her contributions had a major impact or were widely recognized as significant in the field of robotics.
Next Steps:
The Petitioner may consider gathering more robust evidence to support claims of significant contributions and widespread impact in the field before reapplying or exploring alternative visa classifications.
