Date of Decision: September 13, 2016
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Researcher and Scientist
Field: Therapeutic Treatments for Stroke and Neurodegenerative Diseases
Nationality: [Not specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Judging Criterion: The Petitioner has reviewed articles for several journals.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles Criterion: The Petitioner documented his authorship of scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications.
Criteria Not Met:
Original Contributions of Major Significance Criterion: Despite citations and presentations, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that his contributions are of major significance in the field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
- The Petitioner received a best poster award at the 2015 conference, but this did not suffice to prove original contributions of major significance.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
- The Petitioner’s work has been cited, but the citations do not rise to the level of demonstrating major significance.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- The Petitioner’s work was acknowledged but was not proven to have significant impact or influence in the field.
Participation as a Judge:
- The Petitioner met the criterion for judging by reviewing articles for several journals.
Membership in Associations:
- Not applicable.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
- The Petitioner met this criterion by authoring articles in professional journals.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
- Not applicable.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
- Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
- Not applicable.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
- Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
- The Petitioner provided letters of recommendation, citation records, and evidence of participation in conferences and judging panels.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed as the Petitioner did not meet the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or documentation that satisfies at least three of the ten criteria.
Reasoning:
- The Petitioner’s contributions, though recognized, did not meet the level of “major significance” required by the criteria. The evidence provided was insufficient to establish that the Petitioner’s work significantly impacted or influenced the field.
Next Steps:
- The Petitioner may consider gathering additional evidence of his work’s impact and reapplying or exploring other visa classifications.
