Date of Decision: October 29, 2019
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Researcher
Field: Biomedical Technology
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Authorship of scholarly articles: The Petitioner has authored several peer-reviewed articles in notable journals such as Analytical Chemistry, Journal of the American Chemical Society, and Langmuir.
- Participation as a judge: The Petitioner has reviewed manuscripts for journals like Lab on a Chip and Langmuir, and served as an editor for the Journal of Biosensors, Biomarkers and Diagnostics.
- Published materials about the petitioner: Articles in American Scientist and Chemical & Engineering News discuss the Petitioner’s work, with the former being a significant interview about his research.
Criteria Not Met:
- Original contributions of major significance: Although the Petitioner’s research is original and has potential future impact, it has not yet achieved the recognition necessary to be considered of major significance in the field.
- Leading or critical role: The evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate that the Petitioner’s roles in various organizations resulted in sustained national or international acclaim.
- Awards and prizes: While the Petitioner received notable awards, such as “Outstanding Scientist for 2017,” these did not demonstrate the required level of sustained acclaim.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
- Summary of findings: The Petitioner’s awards, including being one of 43 winners at a student poster competition and receiving the “Outstanding Scientist for 2017” award, were acknowledged. However, these awards did not signify the necessary national or international acclaim.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
- Summary of findings: An article in American Scientist and mentions in Chemical & Engineering News were noted. However, some articles did not focus primarily on the Petitioner’s work or were not from major media.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- Summary of findings: The Petitioner’s research was recognized as original and promising. However, it had not yet achieved the required level of significance and influence in the field.
Participation as a Judge:
- Summary of findings: The Petitioner’s role as a peer reviewer and editor was acknowledged. Yet, the significance and impact of these roles were not deemed sufficient to place him at the very top of his field.
Membership in Associations:
- Summary of findings: The Petitioner’s senior membership in Sigma Xi was noted but did not indicate notable achievements or acclaim.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
- Summary of findings: The Petitioner’s publication record was recognized. Nonetheless, the impact and citation of his articles did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
- Summary of findings: The Petitioner’s roles at various organizations were highlighted. However, there was insufficient evidence of these roles contributing to sustained acclaim in the broader field.
Supporting Documentation
- Peer-Reviewed Articles: Co-authored in prestigious journals.
- Judging and Editorial Roles: Peer reviews for various scientific journals and editor positions.
- Published Articles: Mention in major publications.
- Awards and Recognitions: Notable awards in the field.
- Reference Letters: Supporting letters from colleagues and experts in the field.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not meet the evidentiary criteria required for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. The evidence presented did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that the Petitioner is among the small percentage at the top of his field.
Next Steps: It is recommended that the Petitioner continue to enhance his professional accomplishments and gather more substantial evidence of national or international acclaim before reapplying.
