Date of Decision: September 3, 2024
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Research Scientist
Field: Science and Technology – Molecular Research
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
The petitioner claimed eligibility under five regulatory criteria but failed to meet the evidentiary requirements for at least three criteria as determined by the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO).
Criteria Met:
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
- The petitioner authored scholarly articles in scientific journals, which were acknowledged as satisfying the regulatory criterion.
- Participation as a Judge of the Work of Others:
- The petitioner provided evidence of reviewing academic manuscripts, which met this criterion.
Criteria Not Met:
- Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards:
- Awards submitted were not demonstrated to be nationally or internationally recognized, as required by regulation. Documentation provided failed to address the significance or criteria of the awards.
- Membership in Associations Requiring Outstanding Achievements:
- Membership in the Chinese Society of Particuology was claimed but lacked documentation of the association’s membership standards or evidence of outstanding achievements required for eligibility.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- Letters and evidence submitted described contributions but lacked corroboration of field-wide recognition or major significance.
- Leading or Critical Role for Distinguished Organizations:
- Evidence of the petitioner’s work at a research institution did not demonstrate that the organization was distinguished or that the petitioner’s role was critical to its operations.
Key Points from the Decision
Award Significance:
- The petitioner submitted awards from national organizations but failed to demonstrate their significance or criteria for granting them.
Association Membership:
- Membership documentation was provided in untranslated form during the initial petition and only translated on appeal. The AAO declined to consider the new translation, as it was not provided in response to the initial NOID.
Contribution Evidence:
- The petitioner’s co-receipt of a patent was submitted as evidence of significant contributions, but the documentation did not demonstrate the patent’s impact or utilization.
Final Merits Determination Not Conducted:
- Since the petitioner failed to meet at least three criteria, the AAO did not conduct a final merits determination under the Kazarian framework.
Supporting Documentation
Authorship Evidence: Articles published in scientific journals.
Judging Evidence: Peer-review activities for academic manuscripts.
Award Evidence: National-level awards lacking corroboration of significance.
Membership Evidence: Untranslated membership documents for a scientific association.
Contribution Evidence: Patent documentation and letters describing contributions, lacking validation of major significance.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner met two regulatory criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). However, the evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or recognition as one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of molecular research.
