Date of Decision: January 10, 2023
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Scientist
Field: Oilfield Chemistry
Nationality: [Not specified in the document]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Judging: The petitioner satisfied the criteria for judging as demonstrated through evidence of serving as a judge of the work of others in the field.
- Scholarly Articles: The petitioner met the criteria by publishing several scholarly articles in the field of oilfield chemistry.
Criteria Not Met:
- Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- The petitioner claimed several original contributions, including seven patents and technologies tested and implemented in oil production. However, the evidence provided did not sufficiently demonstrate that these contributions were of major significance or widely recognized in the field.
- High Salary or Remuneration:
- Although the petitioner provided evidence of a high salary compared to general professional, scientific, and technical activities, there was no comparative analysis with other petroleum scientists in Russia. The petitioner did not show that his salary was high relative to peers in his specific field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
- No major, internationally recognized awards were provided.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
- The petitioner published several scholarly articles, but the impact of these publications on the field was not demonstrated to be of major significance.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- Patents and technologies developed by the petitioner were novel, but the significance of these contributions was not adequately supported by evidence of widespread impact or recognition in the field.
Participation as a Judge:
- The petitioner served as a judge of others’ work in the field, satisfying one of the evidentiary criteria.
Membership in Associations:
- The petitioner did not submit evidence of membership in associations that require outstanding achievements.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
- The petitioner authored several scholarly articles, which satisfied one of the evidentiary criteria.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
- There was no evidence provided to demonstrate that the petitioner performed a leading or critical role in distinguished organizations.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
- Not applicable to the petitioner’s field.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
- Evidence provided did not meet the criterion for high salary relative to others in the specific field of petroleum science.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
- Not applicable to the petitioner’s field.
Supporting Documentation
- Patents and Technologies: Several patents and technologies developed by the petitioner were listed, but the evidence of their impact was insufficient.
- Scholarly Articles: Multiple articles published by the petitioner in the field of oilfield chemistry.
- Letters of Recommendation: Letters praising the petitioner’s contributions but lacking specific evidence of major significance or widespread implementation in the field.
- Income Tax Documentation: Tax records showing the petitioner’s earnings, which were not sufficiently high compared to others in the specific field.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal dismissed. The petitioner did not meet the required evidentiary criteria to demonstrate extraordinary ability.
Reasoning:
- The petitioner failed to establish at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required for extraordinary ability classification. While some evidence was provided, it did not sufficiently demonstrate the petitioner’s sustained national or international acclaim or major contributions to the field.
Next Steps:
- The petitioner may consider submitting additional evidence that specifically addresses the deficiencies noted in this decision if reapplying. Recommendations include demonstrating the major significance and widespread impact of contributions and providing comparative salary analysis specific to the petitioner’s field.
