Date of Decision: January 18, 2023
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Scientist
Field: Biomedical Sciences
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Judging: The petitioner satisfied the criterion related to judging, demonstrating involvement in the evaluation of the work of others in the field.
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner provided evidence of authorship of scholarly articles in prestigious journals.
Criteria Not Met:
- Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- Description: The petitioner’s contributions were considered incremental additions to the field rather than major, significant impacts. The support letters provided did not sufficiently establish the significance of the petitioner’s work in the broader field.
- Evidence: The petitioner submitted articles, citation records, support letters, conference invitations, and job offers. However, these did not demonstrate significant contributions to the field as required by the regulations.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
- Summary of Findings: The petitioner did not claim to have received any major, internationally recognized awards.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
- Summary of Findings: While the petitioner had published in prestigious journals, this alone did not satisfy the criterion for original contributions of major significance.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- Summary of Findings: The petitioner’s work was deemed to have potential future impact rather than established significant contributions to the field.
- Key Quotes or References: “The regulatory phrase ‘major significance’ is not superfluous and thus has some meaning. Contributions of major significance connotes that the Petitioner’s work has significantly impacted the field.”
Participation as a Judge:
- Summary of Findings: The petitioner demonstrated participation as a judge of the work of others in their field.
Membership in Associations:
- Summary of Findings: No specific information provided regarding membership in associations.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
- Summary of Findings: The petitioner satisfied this criterion by providing evidence of authorship in prestigious journals.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
- Summary of Findings: No specific information provided regarding leading or critical roles.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
- Summary of Findings: Not applicable to this case.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
- Summary of Findings: No specific information provided regarding high salary or remuneration.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
- Summary of Findings: Not applicable to this case.
Supporting Documentation
- Support Letters: Provided by peers and professionals in the field, but lacked sufficient evidence of major significance.
- Articles and Citation Records: Demonstrated publication and citation but not the required impact.
- Conference Invitations and Job Offers: Showed engagement and recognition in the field but did not meet the criterion for major contributions.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal Dismissed
Reasoning:
- The petitioner did not meet the requirement of demonstrating original contributions of major significance to the field.
- The evidence provided did not establish the level of impact or acclaim necessary for the EB1 Extraordinary Ability classification.
Next Steps:
- The petitioner may consider gathering more robust evidence of major contributions to the field.
- Consulting with an immigration attorney specializing in EB1 petitions could provide further guidance on strengthening the application.
