Date of Decision: July 24, 2023
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Researcher
Field: Molecular Biology
Nationality: India
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Judging the Work of Others: The petitioner has judged the work of others in his field by peer-reviewing manuscripts for professional journals.
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner has authored scholarly articles in professional publications, including “Microbial Biotechnology,” “Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery,” and “Bioresource Technology Reports.”
Criteria Not Met:
- Original Contributions of Major Significance: The petitioner did not demonstrate that his contributions have been of major significance in the field. While he has provided evidence of original research and publication, the supporting letters and citation records did not establish the major impact required.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won
- Summary of Findings: No major, internationally recognized awards were presented.
Published Materials About the Petitioner
- Summary of Findings: Evidence was provided of publications and citations, but these did not establish contributions of major significance.
- Key Quotes or References: Letters from colleagues praised the petitioner’s technical prowess but lacked specific examples of major significance.
Original Contributions of Major Significance
- Summary of Findings: The petitioner’s research on novel antimicrobial molecules and probiotics was acknowledged but not demonstrated to have significant impact in the field.
- Key Quotes or References: Letters hypothesized future potential rather than current major impact.
Participation as a Judge
- Summary of Findings: The petitioner judged the work of others through peer-reviewing manuscripts.
- Key Quotes or References: Evidence confirmed participation but did not contribute to major significance.
Membership in Associations
- Summary of Findings: Not claimed.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles
- Summary of Findings: The petitioner authored multiple articles in well-regarded journals.
- Key Quotes or References: Publications in high-ranking journals and citation metrics were presented but were insufficient to establish major significance.
Leading or Critical Role Performed
- Summary of Findings: Not claimed.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases
- Summary of Findings: Not claimed.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration
- Summary of Findings: Not claimed.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts
- Summary of Findings: Not claimed.
Supporting Documentation
- Recommendation Letters: Provided but lacked specific examples of major significance.
- Publication and Citation Records: Showed productivity and reliance by others but not major significance.
- Government Funding: Evidence of past funding did not establish major significance.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
- The petitioner did not provide initial evidence of a major, internationally recognized award or meet at least three of the ten criteria required for EB1 classification.
- The evidence of contributions and recognition was insufficient to establish the petitioner’s work as of major significance in the field.
Next Steps:
- It is recommended that the petitioner gather more substantial evidence of their impact and contributions to the field before reapplying.
