Date of Decision: May 30, 2018
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Researcher
Field: Chemical Science
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Judging the Work of Others at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv):
The petitioner served as a reviewer for a workshop and three different scientific journals on eight occasions, demonstrating his role as a judge of the work of others in his field.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi):
The petitioner has published more than 20 articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals, meeting the criteria for authorship of scholarly articles.
Criteria Not Met:
Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i):
The petitioner submitted an award received upon completion of his Ph.D. in materials science. However, the translation was not properly certified, and there were inconsistencies in the description of the award’s basis. The award was not sufficiently established as being for excellence in chemical science.
Membership in Associations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii):
The petitioner submitted a membership card from an association. However, the membership began after the petition was filed, and the membership requirements did not establish that it required outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts.
Published Material at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii):
The petitioner provided a website printout about a scientific conference where he presented an abstract. This did not meet the criteria as it lacked information about the petitioner’s work and the website was not established as a major publication.
Original Contributions of Major Significance at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v):
Letters and documentation provided by the petitioner described potential applications of his research but did not demonstrate that his contributions had already made a significant impact on the field of chemical science or the pharmaceutical industry.
Leading or Critical Role at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii):
The petitioner submitted certificates and employment contracts verifying his roles as a postdoctoral researcher and a teacher. However, these documents did not describe how he played a leading or critical role, nor did they provide evidence regarding the reputation of these institutions.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner received an award upon completion of his Ph.D., but it was not sufficiently established as being for excellence in chemical science.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The petitioner provided a website printout about a scientific conference, but this did not meet the criteria for published material in major media.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner’s research was recognized for its potential applications, but it did not demonstrate a significant impact on the field.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner served as a reviewer for various workshops and scientific journals, meeting the criteria for judging the work of others.
Membership in Associations:
The petitioner’s membership in an association did not meet the criteria as it began after the petition was filed, and the membership requirements did not establish outstanding achievements.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner published over 20 articles in peer-reviewed journals, meeting the criteria for authorship of scholarly articles.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner’s roles as a postdoctoral researcher and a teacher were not sufficiently demonstrated to be leading or critical.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not applicable.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
The petitioner provided several pieces of evidence, including:
Evidence of serving as a reviewer for workshops and scientific journals.
More than 20 peer-reviewed articles authored by the petitioner.
Letters and documentation describing the potential applications of his research.
Certificates and employment contracts verifying his roles as a postdoctoral researcher and a teacher.
Conclusion
Final Determination:
The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to meet the initial criteria required for EB1 Extraordinary Ability classification. Although the petitioner met two criteria, the evidence did not demonstrate a major contribution in the field of chemical science. Consequently, the petitioner failed to establish the level of expertise required for the classification sought.
Next Steps:
The petitioner may consider consulting with new legal counsel to explore any further options for appeal or other immigration benefits for which he may be eligible.
