Date of Decision: DEC 10, 2018
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Researcher
Field: Medical Science, specifically pneumonia research
Nationality: [Not provided in the document]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Participation as a Judge: The Petitioner conducted reviews for several journals, including the Journal of Respiratory Care, European Respiratory Journal, and ERJ Open Research, fulfilling the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv).
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The Petitioner authored multiple scholarly articles in recognized journals such as the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care, Infection and Immunity, and Respiratory Care, meeting the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi).
Criteria Not Met:
Receipt of Lesser Recognized Prizes or Awards: The Petitioner’s receipt of scholarships and other awards did not meet the standard of being nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field. The scholarships were primarily for early-career professionals rather than established experts, thus failing the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i).
Original Contributions of Major Significance: While the Petitioner’s research was recognized and cited, the evidence did not demonstrate that his contributions had a major impact on the field. The research was often noted for its potential rather than its realized impact, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v).
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Findings: The Petitioner’s scholarships and awards were primarily for students and early-career professionals, not established experts in the field. The awards did not meet the criteria for being nationally or internationally recognized for excellence.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Findings: Not applicable in this case.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Findings: The Petitioner’s contributions, while significant and promising, were often cited for their potential future impact rather than their current influence on the field. The documentation provided did not sufficiently show that the research had already led to significant changes or advancements in medical practice.
Participation as a Judge:
Findings: The Petitioner served as a peer reviewer for several respected journals, meeting this criterion.
Membership in Associations:
Findings: Not applicable in this case.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Findings: The Petitioner authored multiple scholarly articles in professional journals, fulfilling this criterion.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Findings: Not applicable in this case.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Findings: Not applicable in this case.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Findings: Not applicable in this case.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Findings: Not applicable in this case.
Supporting Documentation
Articles and Reviews: Various articles and reviews about the Petitioner’s research.
Recommendation Letters: Letters from colleagues and experts supporting the significance and potential impact of the Petitioner’s research contributions.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal Dismissed
Reasoning:
The Petitioner did not meet the required initial evidence of either a one-time major achievement or at least three of the ten criteria for extraordinary ability. The evidence presented did not establish the Petitioner’s sustained national or international acclaim or that he is among the small percentage who has risen to the very top of his field.
Next Steps:
The Petitioner may consider gathering more robust evidence of his contributions’ significance and potentially reapplying if additional substantial evidence can be presented. Consulting with an immigration attorney for further guidance and preparation may also be beneficial.
