Date of Decision: April 18, 2018
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Researcher
Field: Medical Technology
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met
Participation as a Judge: The Petitioner served as a reviewer of papers submitted for three conferences. This criterion was acknowledged as met by the Director.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The Petitioner authored three peer-reviewed papers presented at scientific conferences, two of which were published as full papers in the proceedings of those conferences. This criterion was also met.
Criteria Not Met
Original Contributions of Major Significance: While the Petitioner made original contributions, the evidence did not establish their significance. The letters provided did not offer corroborating evidence to support claims of the impact and implementation of the Petitioner’s work on a broader scale.
Leading or Critical Role: The Petitioner held positions at two organizations. However, the evidence did not establish that these roles were leading or critical. The letters from colleagues lacked specifics about the Petitioner’s impact on the organizations’ hierarchy and overall success.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won
Not applicable as no evidence was provided or discussed regarding awards or prizes won by the Petitioner.
Published Materials About the Petitioner
The Director acknowledged the Petitioner’s authored papers, but did not consider them to meet the criterion of being published in major trade publications or other major media.
Original Contributions of Major Significance
The Director found that while the Petitioner had made original contributions, there was insufficient evidence to establish their significance in the field of medical technology.
Participation as a Judge
The Petitioner met this criterion by serving as a reviewer for three conferences, which was accepted by the Director.
Membership in Associations
Not applicable as the Petitioner did not contest the Director’s finding that he did not establish eligibility for this criterion.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles
The Petitioner met this criterion by authoring peer-reviewed papers that were presented at scientific conferences and published in the proceedings.
Leading or Critical Role
The evidence provided did not support that the Petitioner performed in a leading or critical role within the organizations.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases
Not applicable as no evidence was provided or discussed regarding artistic exhibitions or showcases.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration
Not applicable as no evidence was provided or discussed regarding high salary or remuneration.
Commercial successes in the Performing Arts
Not applicable as no evidence was provided or discussed regarding commercial successes in the performing arts.
Supporting Documentation
The supporting documents included letters from colleagues and experts, evidence of the Petitioner’s participation as a judge, and evidence of authored scholarly articles. However, the documentation lacked corroborative details to support claims of major significance and leading roles.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not meet three of the ten evidentiary criteria necessary for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. The evidence provided did not demonstrate the level of expertise required for the classification sought.
Next Steps: The Petitioner should gather more robust and corroborative evidence to support claims of extraordinary ability and consider reapplying if additional supporting documentation can be provided.
