Date of Decision: March 3, 2023
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Researcher
Field: Biomolecular Computational Modeling
Nationality: [Nationality]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The Petitioner has authored multiple scholarly articles published in esteemed scientific journals.
- Service as a Judge of the Work of Others: The Petitioner has served as a judge of the work of other professionals in her field.
- Role for an Organization with a Distinguished Reputation: The Petitioner holds a significant role at the University of [University], which has a distinguished reputation in her field.
- Original Scientific Contributions of Major Significance: The Petitioner’s research has led to major scientific contributions, particularly in the understanding and potential treatment of diseases such as breast cancer.
Criteria Not Met:
- Published Material About the Alien: While there were publications about the Petitioner’s work, they were deemed insufficient as they were primarily marketing materials.
- Evidence of Performing in a Leading or Critical Role: The evidence provided did not convincingly establish that the Petitioner’s role was critical to her organization or that the organization had a distinguished reputation.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
- Not applicable.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
- Summary of findings: The materials presented included a commentary article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science and a press release. However, these were not considered qualifying due to their nature as promotional content.
- Key quotes or references: “The prestige of PNAS as shown by its high ranking and journal impact factor…”
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- Summary of findings: The Petitioner’s work, especially in the MAPK cell signaling pathway, has been influential and recognized as significant in the field of cancer research.
- Key quotes or references: “Her work laid the groundwork for the development of therapies which could prevent the spread of breast cancer.”
Participation as a Judge:
- Summary of findings: The Petitioner has served as a peer reviewer for several scientific journals, indicating her recognized expertise in her field.
- Key quotes or references: [Relevant quotes from decision]
Membership in Associations:
- Not applicable.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
- Summary of findings: The Petitioner has numerous publications in high-impact journals, with several highly cited papers.
- Key quotes or references: “Her most-cited paper, published in Elife in 2016, ranks in the 90th percentile amongst NIH-funded research papers.”
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
- Summary of findings: Although initially found qualifying, upon further review, the Petitioner’s role was not sufficiently evidenced as critical.
- Key quotes or references: [Relevant quotes from decision]
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
- Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
- Not applicable.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
- Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
- Commentary Article in PNAS: Discusses the significance of the Petitioner’s work, but lacks sufficient personal details.
- Press Release from [Institution]: Includes quotations and details about the Petitioner’s background but primarily serves as a promotional material.
- Reference Letters: From colleagues and collaborators attesting to the significance of her research contributions.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The Director’s decision is withdrawn, and the case is remanded for further review.
Reasoning: The Director did not fully consider all evidence, particularly regarding the Petitioner’s original contributions and published materials.
Next Steps: The Petitioner should provide additional evidence or clarifications as requested by the Service Center.
