Date of Decision: October 5, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Researcher
Field: Radiation Biology, Neuroscience, Gulf War Illness (GWI)
Nationality: [Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Judging: The Petitioner served as a peer reviewer for journals such as Radiation Research, Food, and Cancer Biotherapy and Radiopharmaceuticals, and as an editor for Innovare Journal of Health Science and Indo Global Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, meeting the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv).
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The Petitioner authored over 40 scholarly articles, satisfying the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi).
Criteria Not Met:
Published Material: The articles submitted were about the Petitioner’s research but not about the Petitioner himself, not meeting the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii).
Original Scientific Contributions: The reference letters did not adequately explain how the Petitioner’s research had led to contributions of major significance. The letters and citation metrics provided did not establish that the contributions were of major significance in the field as required under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v).
Leading or Critical Role: Although the Petitioner played leading roles in certain journals, the evidence did not establish that these journals had a distinguished reputation, failing to meet the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii).
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
No evidence provided.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Articles mentioned the Petitioner but were primarily about his research findings, not meeting the required criterion.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner’s contributions, while noted, did not sufficiently demonstrate major significance in the field. Citation data and Altmetric scores were presented but did not provide clear evidence of major impact.
Participation as a Judge:
The Petitioner participated as a judge for several scientific journals, meeting this criterion.
Membership in Associations:
No evidence provided.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Petitioner authored numerous scholarly articles, meeting this criterion.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The Petitioner’s roles in journals did not establish the journals’ distinguished reputations, failing to meet this criterion.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
No evidence provided.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
The Petitioner provided various supporting documents, including reference letters, citation metrics, and editorial roles. However, these did not collectively establish the required criteria for extraordinary ability.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The evidence provided did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that the Petitioner is among the small percentage at the top of his field. The Petitioner did not meet the required evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability.
Next Steps: The Petitioner may consider submitting additional evidence that clearly establishes the major significance of their contributions or explore other immigration options that may better fit their qualifications.
