Date of Decision: March 26, 2019
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Scientific Programmer
Field: Material Science
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Participation as a Judge (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv)):
The Petitioner served as a peer reviewer of manuscripts.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi)):
The Petitioner authored scholarly articles in professional publications.
Criteria Not Met:
Original Contributions of Major Significance (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v)):
The Petitioner’s research publications and citation evidence were deemed insufficient to demonstrate major significance. The citation count and expert letters did not establish the impact as necessary for this criterion.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
No significant awards or prizes were presented.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Not highlighted in the decision.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- Summary of findings: The petitioner provided research publications and citation evidence. Despite some recognition, the work was not considered of major significance in the field.
- Key quotes or references:
- “The record does not show that the Petitioner’s findings have been widely implemented or otherwise represent a scientific contribution of major significance in his field.”
Participation as a Judge:
- Summary of findings: The Petitioner served as a peer reviewer.
- Key quotes or references: None provided.
Membership in Associations:
Not highlighted in the decision.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
- Summary of findings: The Petitioner authored several scholarly articles.
- Key quotes or references: None provided.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Not highlighted in the decision.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not highlighted in the decision.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
- Research Publications: A list of articles authored by the Petitioner, including citation counts.
- Letters of Recommendation: Testimonials from colleagues highlighting the Petitioner’s contributions.
- Google Scholar Citation Report: Detailed citation data for the Petitioner’s publications.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The Petitioner did not meet the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or three of the ten criteria. The documentation provided did not demonstrate the sustained national or international acclaim necessary for the EB-1 classification.
Next Steps:
It is recommended that the Petitioner consider gathering additional evidence to meet the required criteria or exploring other immigration options.
