Date of Decision: September 6, 2022
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Researcher
Field: Biochemistry
Nationality: [Nationality not specified in the provided document]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner provided evidence of having authored several scholarly articles.
- Participation as a Judge: The petitioner participated as a judge of the work of others in his field.
Criteria Not Met:
- Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards:
- The petitioner submitted a new letter confirming his inclusion in certain publications. However, this did not provide new information and thus was not considered.
- The petitioner also submitted new evidence regarding qualifications for a lectureship and a senior research fellowship, but these were not previously contested and thus not considered.
- Published Material About the Individual:
- Evidence of the petitioner’s authorship of a book chapter and a press release were deemed not to be about the petitioner himself. Additional copies of the same press release on different websites were also considered irrelevant.
- Reference to the petitioner’s work on a website was not considered material about him.
- Original Scientific Contributions of Major Significance:
- Complete copies of previously submitted scholarly articles did not add new evidence of the originality or significance of the petitioner’s contributions.
- A new letter highlighted potential significant impact but did not provide evidence of current impact by others in the field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner’s inclusion in specific publications and qualifications for certain awards were not sufficient to meet the criterion.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Submitted evidence did not qualify as material specifically about the petitioner and his work.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
While the petitioner’s research has potential significance, evidence did not demonstrate that these contributions have been widely implemented or remarkably impacted the field.
Supporting Documentation
- Letters and Publications:
- Letters from colleagues and additional copies of scholarly articles previously submitted.
- Metrics and citations from Google Scholar.
- Press releases related to the petitioner’s research.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Motion to reopen dismissed.
Reasoning: The evidence provided did not introduce new facts necessary for a motion to reopen and did not meet the required evidentiary criteria.
Next Steps:
Petitioners should ensure that any motions to reopen provide new and substantial evidence that clearly meets the criteria set forth by USCIS. It is advisable to consult with legal experts to strengthen future petitions.
