Date of Decision: July 9, 2018
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Researcher
Field: Materials Science
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Service as a Judge of the Work of Others:
The Petitioner provided evidence of his role as a peer reviewer for several scholarly journals, demonstrating his recognized expertise in evaluating the work of others in his field.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner submitted evidence of his contributions to the field of materials science, including research that has been cited by other researchers. However, the evidence provided did not demonstrate that these contributions were of major significance.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Petitioner has authored numerous scholarly articles in the field of materials science, which were published in professional journals. This criterion was met by providing evidence of his significant contributions to academic research.
Criteria Not Met:
Published Material About the Petitioner:
The Petitioner provided a screenshot from a website that mentioned him. However, the content was about the event rather than specifically about the Petitioner. Additionally, the Petitioner did not establish that the website is a major trade publication or other major media.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner claimed that his research contributions were of major significance, supported by reference letters. However, the letters did not demonstrate how these contributions had a major impact on the field. They praised his skills and projects but lacked specific evidence showing a significant impact or widespread implementation.
Membership in Associations:
The Petitioner provided an updated letter from the founder of an ultrarunning organization, stating that his ranking and win at the Icarus event led to an honorary position. However, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that this honorary position was equivalent to membership in an organization that requires outstanding achievements.
Leading or Critical Role for Organizations with Distinguished Reputations:
The Petitioner claimed a critical role based on his consulting position with an ultrarunning organization. However, he did not provide evidence of his contributions in this role or demonstrate that the organization has a distinguished reputation.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The Petitioner received several awards in ultramarathon events, including a first-place finish in a 2014 race. These awards were recognized by international experts, but additional evidence was needed to fully establish their significance.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The materials provided were not sufficient to meet the criteria for published material. The content focused on events rather than the Petitioner, and the publication was not established as major media.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner’s contributions were praised but not demonstrated to be of major significance. The evidence lacked specific examples of how his work significantly influenced the field of ultramarathon running.
Participation as a Judge:
Not addressed in the decision, suggesting no evidence was presented for this criterion.
Membership in Associations:
The Petitioner’s honorary position did not meet the criterion for membership in an organization requiring outstanding achievements.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Petitioner’s articles in professional journals met this criterion, demonstrating his contributions to academic research.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The evidence did not demonstrate that the Petitioner’s consulting role was critical to the organization’s success or that the organization had a distinguished reputation.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable based on the field of ultramarathon running.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not addressed in the decision, suggesting no evidence was presented for this criterion.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable based on the field of ultramarathon running.
Supporting Documentation
The documentation included letters from professionals, evidence of awards, articles, and screenshots from various websites. However, these documents did not sufficiently establish the Petitioner’s recognition or meet the required criteria for extraordinary ability.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal dismissed.
Reasoning:
The Petitioner did not submit the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria listed in the regulations. The overall review of the submitted materials did not demonstrate the sustained acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought.
Next Steps:
The Petitioner may consider gathering more robust and detailed evidence to support the criteria that were not met. Ensuring that all documentation includes specific details about the significance and impact of the Petitioner’s contributions on the field is crucial for any future submissions.
