Date of Decision: SEP. 06, 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: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner met this criterion by providing evidence of his scholarly articles.
Participation as a Judge of the Work of Others: The petitioner also met this criterion by demonstrating his participation as a judge in his field.
Criteria Not Met:
Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards:
The petitioner did not provide new facts or sufficient evidence to demonstrate receipt of nationally or internationally recognized awards.
Published Material About the Individual:
The petitioner did not meet this criterion as the submitted materials were not primarily about him, nor were they published in qualifying media types.
Original Scientific Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner failed to establish that his contributions have been widely implemented or have had a significant impact on the field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won: The petitioner submitted evidence of inclusion in specific scientific directories and awards from Indian councils, but these were not recognized as significant awards in the appeal.
Published Materials About the Petitioner: Submitted materials included press releases and references on websites, but they were not deemed sufficient to meet the criteria for published material about the petitioner.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The petitioner’s research contributions were acknowledged, but they were not shown to have had a significant impact on the field or been widely adopted by other researchers.
Participation as a Judge: The petitioner demonstrated participation as a judge in his field, meeting one of the evidentiary criteria.
Membership in Associations: There was no specific mention of membership in associations as a met criterion in the decision.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner met the criterion related to the authorship of scholarly articles.
Leading or Critical Role Performed: The decision did not highlight this criterion as met.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases: This criterion was not applicable to the petitioner’s case.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration: There was no discussion on this criterion in the decision.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts: This criterion was not applicable to the petitioner’s case.
Supporting Documentation
- Letter from L: Confirmed the inclusion in specific scientific directories but lacked new information.
- Letters from Indian Councils: Recognized lectureships and fellowships but were not considered new evidence.
- Press Releases and Web References: Included previously submitted evidence, which did not add new facts.
- List of Publications and Citations: Previously reviewed and included no new significant information.
- Additional Scholarly Articles: Provided full articles but did not establish new significant contributions.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The motion to reopen was dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not submit new evidence that met the requirements for a motion to reopen. The evidence provided did not demonstrate eligibility for the requested classification.
Next Steps: Recommendations for the petitioner include gathering and presenting new, substantial evidence that clearly meets the specified criteria for an EB-1 Extraordinary Ability classification.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
Cite as Matter of G-M-, ID# 22320416
Document: SEP062022_02B2203
