Date of Decision: DEC. 19, 2019
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Researcher
Field: Biomedical Engineering
Nationality: [Nationality]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Judging: The Petitioner fulfilled the judging criteria by reviewing papers for journals.
Scholarly Articles: The Petitioner authored scholarly articles in professional publications.
Criteria Not Met:
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Petitioner’s original contributions were acknowledged but not established as being of major significance within the field.
Published Materials About the Petitioner: Although citations and references were provided, they did not demonstrate that the Petitioner’s work is widely recognized as majorly significant.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The Petitioner did not receive any major, internationally recognized awards.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The Petitioner provided articles and excerpts citing his work but failed to show its significance to the overall field beyond individual citations.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner’s research was acknowledged as original and beneficial, but the evidence did not confirm that it has had a significant influence on the field.
Participation as a Judge:
The Petitioner reviewed papers for journals, satisfying this criterion.
Membership in Associations:
Not specified.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Petitioner authored several scholarly articles, which received citations, but this did not establish the articles as being of major significance in the field.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Not specified.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not specified.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
Letters from Colleagues and Experts:
Summarized the Petitioner’s research achievements but did not provide detailed information on the significant impact of his work.
Articles and Citations:
Provided evidence of citations but lacked context to demonstrate major significance in the field.
Funding and Grants:
The Petitioner secured significant funding and grants, highlighting the potential impact of his research.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal dismissed
Reasoning:
The Petitioner did not submit the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or documents meeting at least three of the ten criteria. The evidence provided did not establish that the Petitioner’s work has had a significant influence on the field or that he has achieved the required sustained national or international acclaim.
Next Steps:
The Petitioner should consider gathering more robust evidence of his work’s significance and impact in the field, including detailed letters from experts and documented evidence of his contributions being widely recognized.
