Date of Decision: September 24, 2020
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Research Scientist
Field: Scientific Research
Nationality: [Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Scholarly Articles: The petitioner provided evidence of authoring scholarly articles in professional publications, fulfilling this criterion.
Criteria Not Met:
Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards: The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate receipt of nationally or internationally recognized awards for excellence in the field of scientific research. The awards mentioned were not substantiated with documentation showing their significance or the criteria used for granting them.
Published Material: The petitioner submitted articles from various publications, but they did not meet the regulatory requirements as they were not shown to be from major media or professional trade publications about the petitioner. The articles did not include sufficient details like circulation statistics or the intended audience.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The petitioner provided letters of support discussing his contributions as a research scientist. However, these letters did not sufficiently demonstrate that his work constituted original contributions of major significance in the field.
Membership in Associations: The petitioner’s memberships were not demonstrated to require outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts.
Participation as a Judge: No evidence was provided to demonstrate participation as a judge of the work of others in the field.
Leading or Critical Role: The petitioner’s roles were significant but did not establish them as leading or critical for the organizations’ overall success.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases: Not applicable, as the petitioner’s field does not involve artistic exhibitions or showcases.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration: No evidence was provided to demonstrate that his salary was significantly high relative to others in his field.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts: Not applicable, as the petitioner’s field does not involve commercial successes in the performing arts.
Key Points from the Decision
The petitioner failed to demonstrate eligibility under the required criteria for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in scientific research. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) upheld the Director’s decision, noting that the petitioner did not provide the necessary documentation to meet the stringent requirements of the category. The evidence submitted did not show sustained national or international acclaim nor did it place the petitioner at the very top of the field of endeavor.
Supporting Documentation
The record included submissions regarding scholarly articles, support letters, and materials about the petitioner’s work, but these did not meet the necessary standards to substantiate the claims of extraordinary ability.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not demonstrate that the Administrative Appeals Office incorrectly dismissed his appeal, nor did he provide new facts or evidence to establish that he fulfilled at least three of the evidentiary criteria for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability.
Next Steps: The petitioner should consider gathering more robust and relevant evidence that clearly demonstrates sustained national or international acclaim and significant contributions to the field of scientific research.
