Date of Decision: July 10, 2018
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Researcher
Field: Sciences
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Judging: The petitioner served as a judge of the work of others by reviewing manuscripts for journals such as the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner authored scholarly articles in professional publications like PLoS One and the Journal of Medicinal Chemistry.
Criteria Not Met:
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The petitioner’s work, while cited and recognized within specific research communities, was not demonstrated to have major significance in the broader field. The letters of recommendation did not sufficiently prove that the petitioner’s contributions had a significant impact on the field as a whole.
Awards and Prizes: The petitioner did not provide evidence of awards or prizes that were nationally or internationally recognized as required by the criterion.
Membership in Associations: The petitioner claimed membership in professional associations but did not provide evidence that these memberships required outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
High Salary or Remuneration: There was no evidence provided to demonstrate that the petitioner’s salary was significantly higher than others in similar positions in the field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won: The petitioner did not provide evidence of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field.
Published Materials About the Petitioner: Not applicable based on the provided evidence.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The letters from colleagues and evidence of citations did not sufficiently demonstrate that the petitioner’s contributions were of major significance. While his work was recognized, it was not shown to have a transformative impact on the field.
Participation as a Judge: The petitioner served as a reviewer for several scientific journals, meeting this criterion.
Membership in Associations: The petitioner’s claimed memberships did not meet the criterion of requiring outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner authored several scholarly articles in well-regarded journals, fulfilling this criterion.
Leading or Critical Role Performed: Not applicable based on the provided evidence.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases: Not applicable based on the provided evidence.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration: The petitioner did not demonstrate that his salary was significantly higher than others in the field.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts: Not applicable based on the provided evidence.
Supporting Documentation
The documentation included letters from colleagues, copies of published articles, evidence of manuscript reviews, and citation records. However, much of the evidence did not meet the necessary criteria to demonstrate extraordinary ability.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal Dismissed
Reasoning: The petitioner did not meet the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or documentation that meets at least three of the ten criteria. While the petitioner satisfied the criteria for judging and authorship of scholarly articles, the totality of the evidence did not support a finding of sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of his field.
Next Steps: The petitioner may consider gathering more substantial evidence of individual achievements and acclaim within the field, focusing on personal awards, critical reviews, and documented contributions of major significance to strengthen future petitions.
