Date of Decision: September 9, 2021
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Researcher
Field: Neurology
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 successfully demonstrated her involvement as a peer reviewer for various scientific journals. Although the involvement of her doctoral advisor in her invitations was noted, it was still considered valid evidence of her judging expertise.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner authored multiple highly-cited scholarly articles in the field of neurology. Her works have been cited over 1000 times, with four articles each receiving over 100 citations.
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The petitioner made significant discoveries in the field of neurology, contributing to the scientific community with groundbreaking research recognized through extensive citations.
Criteria Not Met:
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration: The petition did not provide sufficient evidence to meet this criterion.
Published Materials About the Petitioner: While there were references and citations, they did not independently establish the petitioner’s extraordinary ability.
Awards and Prizes Won: There was no major, internationally recognized award submitted as evidence.
Membership in Associations: The petition did not demonstrate memberships in associations requiring outstanding achievements.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases: Not applicable in this case.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts: Not applicable in this case.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Not applicable; no major awards were presented as evidence.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient independent evidence of her recognition through published materials.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner’s research contributions were significant and widely recognized within the scientific community. Her work’s impact was evident through extensive citations and the acknowledgment by other experts in the field.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner participated as a peer reviewer for prestigious journals, but the involvement of her mentor raised questions about the independence of her recognition.
Membership in Associations:
Not applicable; no evidence of significant memberships was provided.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner authored several influential and widely-cited scholarly articles, contributing significantly to the field of neurology.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Not specifically detailed in the decision.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
No compelling evidence was provided.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
Peer Review Invitations: Provided as evidence of participation as a judge.
Citation Records: Over 1000 citations of the petitioner’s work, demonstrating significant impact in the field.
Reference Letters: Although provided, they were not considered sufficient without independent verification.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Remanded for further review and final merits determination.
Reasoning: The petitioner met three of the required criteria, but further analysis is needed to determine if she has achieved the level of extraordinary ability required for the EB1 classification.
Next Steps
Recommendations for the Petitioner:
Provide additional independent evidence supporting the significance and impact of her contributions.
Address the potential conflicts of interest regarding peer review invitations.
Submit any additional documentation that can further corroborate her acclaim and recognition in the field of neurology.
