Date of Decision: May 29, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Researcher in Immunology and Food Allergy
Field: Science and Medicine
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met
Judging the Work of Others: The Petitioner satisfied this criterion by providing evidence that she reviewed papers for journals.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The Petitioner authored scholarly articles in professional publications, satisfying this criterion.
Criteria Not Met
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Petitioner claimed to have made several original contributions of major significance in her field, as evidenced by her published research, citation record, and letters from experts. However, the evidence provided did not sufficiently demonstrate that these contributions were of major significance. The citation counts and letters from colleagues lacked specific, detailed information on how the Petitioner’s contributions significantly impacted the field. Comparative rankings and citation counts alone were not sufficient to establish the contributions as major significance.
Published Material in Major Media: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that published materials about her were in major trade or professional publications or other major media. The articles provided did not consistently focus on the Petitioner or demonstrate that the sources qualify as major media.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not establish that she personally received nationally or internationally recognized awards. The provided evidence did not demonstrate the awards’ recognition at the required level.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that published materials about her were in major trade or professional publications or other major media. The articles lacked proper attribution and were not focused on the Petitioner.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate original contributions of major significance in the field. The letters and citations lacked specific details on the impact and significance of her contributions.
Participation as a Judge:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner served as a reviewer for scholarly journals, satisfying this criterion.
Membership in Associations:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Summary of findings: The Petitioner authored several scholarly articles in reputable professional journals, satisfying this criterion.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Summary of findings: No evidence provided.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner met two criteria but did not provide sufficient evidence to meet at least three of the ten criteria. The Petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that she is among the small percentage at the very top of her field. The totality of the evidence did not support a finding of the required acclaim and recognition for the classification sought.
Next Steps: The Petitioner must provide more substantial and specific evidence to meet the criteria for extraordinary ability classification. The Petitioner should ensure that all evidence clearly demonstrates the required levels of recognition and impact in her field.
