Date of Decision: OCT. 27, 2022
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Researcher
Field: Information Science and Engineering
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Participation as a Judge of the Work of Others:
The Petitioner participated as a judge of the work of others, which is a recognized criterion for extraordinary ability.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Petitioner has authored scholarly articles in their field, meeting another key criterion.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner made original contributions of major significance to their field. Reference letters and supporting documentation provided detailed explanations of the significance and impact of these contributions on both the field and the individual authors’ work.
Criteria Not Met:
The document does not specify criteria that were not met beyond the acknowledgment that the petitioner satisfied at least three criteria.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
No major, internationally recognized award was indicated or shown by the petitioner.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The provided evidence did not establish the petitioner’s satisfaction of this criterion as there was no mention of significant published materials about the petitioner.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Reference letters and documentation were sufficient to establish that the petitioner’s contributions are of major significance, impacting both the field and the specific work of others in the domain.
Participation as a Judge:
The Petitioner has actively participated as a judge of the work of others, fulfilling one of the criteria for extraordinary ability.
Membership in Associations:
No evidence was presented to suggest the petitioner claimed or satisfied this criterion.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner has authored several scholarly articles, meeting one of the necessary criteria for extraordinary ability.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
No evidence was provided to indicate the petitioner performed a leading or critical role in distinguished organizations.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable to this case.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
No evidence related to high salary or remuneration was mentioned.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable to this case.
Supporting Documentation
- Reference Letters: These letters clearly explain the major significance of the petitioner’s contributions and their impact on the field.
- Scholarly Articles: Authored by the petitioner and published in recognized journals.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The matter is remanded for further review.
Reasoning: The petitioner has overcome the only stated ground for denial by meeting three criteria, but a final merits determination is needed.
Next Steps: The Director will conduct a final merits determination to assess the totality of the evidence and determine if the petitioner qualifies for the extraordinary ability classification.
