Date of Decision: April 14, 2015
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Science Technician
Field: Translational Scientific Research
Field: Not specified
Initial Decision
Denied
Appeal Outcome
Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met
Authorship of scholarly articles: The petitioner provided sufficient evidence, including published scholarly works in his field, establishing that he meets this criterion.
Criteria Not Met
Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards: The petitioner did not submit qualifying evidence under this criterion.
Membership in associations: The petitioner did not provide evidence of membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements judged by national or international experts.
Published material about the petitioner: The petitioner’s publication in political science does not relate to his scientific research field.
Participation as a judge: The petitioner served on a panel at a local community college conference, but it did not establish judging the work of others in the relevant field.
Original contributions of major significance: The petitioner’s book is unrelated to his field, and he did not demonstrate how his contributions have significantly impacted his field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won
The petitioner did not contest the findings regarding the lack of nationally or internationally recognized awards for excellence in his field.
Published Materials About the Petitioner
The material provided was about a political science publication, not related to the petitioner’s scientific research.
Original Contributions of Major Significance
Letters from colleagues praised the petitioner’s skills and work ethic but did not demonstrate a major impact on the field. Scholarly articles with a small number of citations did not meet the threshold of major significance.
Participation as a Judge
The evidence did not demonstrate formal judging capacity relevant to the field of translational scientific research.
Membership in Associations
No evidence was provided to show membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles
The petitioner met this criterion with sufficient evidence of published scholarly works in his field.
Supporting Documentation
- Scholarly Articles: Published articles demonstrating the petitioner’s contributions to his field.
- Recommendation Letters: Letters from colleagues praising the petitioner’s skills and potential benefits of his research.
Conclusion
Final Determination
The petitioner did not satisfy the initial evidence requirements and thus did not establish eligibility for the EB-1 classification.
Reasoning
The petitioner did not meet the criteria of having extraordinary ability in his field, as evidenced by the lack of qualifying evidence under the required criteria.
Next Steps
The petitioner may file a motion to reconsider or reopen the decision within 33 days.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
