Date of Decision: FEB. 25, 2022
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Researcher in Biochemistry
Field: Biochemistry
Nationality: India
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Participation as a judge of the work of others:
The Petitioner has acted as a peer reviewer for scholarly articles written by other researchers. This activity is routine for researchers in the Petitioner’s field but was deemed sufficient to meet this criterion.
Authorship of scholarly articles:
The Petitioner has authored several scholarly articles. However, the Google Scholar printout submitted with the petition did not show any articles published after 2014, which raises concerns about sustained acclaim.
Criteria Not Met:
Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field:
The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence that the certifications and professional credentials he received constitute prizes or awards rather than professional achievements. The submitted certificates were not recognized as awards for excellence in the field.
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media, relating to the alien’s work:
The materials provided by the Petitioner, including citations in bibliographies and references, did not qualify as published material about the Petitioner. They were considered insufficient to meet the regulatory requirements for this criterion.
Original contributions of major significance in the field:
The Petitioner claimed to have made significant contributions through his research papers and citation count. However, the documentation provided did not sufficiently establish the major significance of these contributions. Letters from mentors and citation history lacked objective evidence of the contributions’ impact on the field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The Petitioner’s certificates indicating inclusion in biographical records were not accepted as evidence of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The references and citations provided were considered insufficient as they did not focus specifically on the Petitioner’s work but rather included it among other scholarly references.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
While the Petitioner has published research papers with a notable number of citations, there was no independent, objective evidence provided to establish that these contributions were of major significance to the field of biochemistry.
Participation as a Judge:
The Petitioner’s role as a peer reviewer was recognized, but it was noted that this activity is common and expected in the field, thus diminishing its weight in the overall evaluation.
Membership in Associations:
The documentation did not sufficiently demonstrate that the Petitioner’s memberships in professional associations were indicative of sustained national or international acclaim.
Supporting Documentation
Certificates of Biographical Inclusion: Certificates indicating the Petitioner’s inclusion in biographical records for 2011-2012 and 2016-2017.
Google Scholar Printout: A list of the Petitioner’s publications and citation counts, showing a decline in research output post-2014.
Letters from Mentors: Letters from various mentors praising the Petitioner’s research skills without providing detailed information about the specific nature and impact of his contributions.
Web Printouts from Dimensions: Evaluation of citation histories for the Petitioner’s articles, indicating some were “highly cited.”
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed. The Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability.
Reasoning: The documentation provided did not meet the required evidentiary criteria to establish the Petitioner’s sustained national or international acclaim or demonstrate that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field. The decline in research output post-2014 and the routine nature of the Petitioner’s peer-review activities further weakened the case.
Next Steps: The Petitioner should consider gathering more substantial, independent evidence of major contributions and sustained acclaim in the field. Re-evaluating the documentation and potentially seeking further professional achievements recognized as awards or prizes could strengthen future petitions.
