Date of Decision: JULY 17, 2019
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Researcher
Field: Nanostructure Material Synthesis and Electrochemistry
Nationality: [Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Participation as a Judge: The Petitioner served as a manuscript reviewer for professional journals such as Nano Energy, Journal of Materials Chemistry A, and Journal of Power Sources.
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles: Authored scholarly articles published in reputable journals, including Nano Energy and Nature Energy.
Criteria Not Met:
- Original Contributions of Major Significance: The evidence was insufficient to prove that the Petitioner’s contributions had major significance in the field. His work was cited in numerous publications, but not to an extent that demonstrated a major influence or authoritative status in the field.
Key Points from the Decision
Published Materials About the Petitioner
While the Petitioner has several publications in well-regarded journals, these alone do not confirm major significance in his field. Citations from other works show some influence, but not at a level required by the criteria.
Original Contributions of Major Significance
The record, including reference letters, does not establish that the Petitioner’s research contributions have had a transformative impact on the field, as required for classification under this criterion.
Supporting Documentation
- Resume and Educational Background: Showcases academic and professional journey.
- Scholarly Articles: Includes publications and citations.
- Reference Letters: Testimonials from colleagues and experts in the field, asserting the Petitioner’s contributions.
- Printouts from Scientific Databases: Evidence of citations and influence in related scientific communities.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed. The Petitioner did not demonstrate the required level of extraordinary ability in his field, as defined by sustained national or international acclaim and significant contributions.
Reasoning: The evidence provided did not meet the stringent criteria set forth for EB1 Extraordinary Ability classification. The Petitioner’s work, though valuable, did not rise to the top tier of his field as required.
Next Steps: Potential reevaluation of the petition with additional or new supporting evidence may be considered to strengthen the case.
