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 participated as a judge of the work of others in his field by serving as a reviewer of papers submitted for three conferences.
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.
Criteria Not Met:
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner made original contributions in the field of medical technology, including the development of the LACE tool, which aimed to reduce patient readmissions. However, the evidence lacked corroborating documentation to establish the significance of these contributions on a national or international scale.
Leading or Critical Role:
The petitioner claimed to have held leading or critical roles at several organizations. However, the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate that these roles were at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy or that the petitioner’s contributions had a critical impact on the organizations.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Summary of findings:
The petitioner mentioned a $10,000 prize for the LACE tool at a 2011 conference, but there was no corroborating evidence of this award’s impact on his field.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Summary of findings:
Not specified in the document.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Summary of findings:
The petitioner’s contributions, including the LACE tool and other medical technology projects, were original but lacked evidence of major significance. Assertions from letters by experts without firsthand knowledge of implementation were given limited weight.
Participation as a Judge:
Summary of findings:
The petitioner reviewed papers for three conferences, meeting this criterion.
Membership in Associations:
Summary of findings:
Not specified in the document.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Summary of findings:
The petitioner authored peer-reviewed papers presented at scientific conferences and published in their proceedings, meeting this criterion.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Summary of findings:
The petitioner’s roles at his places of employment were not sufficiently demonstrated to be leading or critical within the organizations’ hierarchies.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Summary of findings:
Not applicable to this case.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Summary of findings:
Not specified in the document.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Summary of findings:
Not applicable to this case.
Supporting Documentation
The petitioner provided various letters from colleagues and supervisors, patent applications, and evidence of conference presentations. However, these documents lacked sufficient corroborating evidence to fully support the claims made about the petitioner’s contributions and roles.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal dismissed
Reasoning: The petitioner did not establish eligibility by failing to meet at least three of the ten required criteria. Despite some evidence of contributions and participation as a judge, the overall documentation was insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and extraordinary ability in the field of medical technology.
Next Steps: The petitioner may consider gathering more substantial and corroborative evidence for future petitions or appeals, ensuring that all claims are well-documented and verified by credible sources with firsthand knowledge.
