Date of Decision: JAN. 19, 2016
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Scientist
Field: Sciences
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Judging of the Work of Others (Criterion IV): The petitioner met the criterion through participation as a judge of the work of peers in the field.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles (Criterion VI): The petitioner satisfied this criterion by authoring scholarly articles recognized in the field.
Criteria Not Met:
Awards or Prizes of Excellence (Criterion I): The petitioner did not provide evidence of receiving awards or prizes for excellence relevant to the claimed extraordinary ability.
Membership in Associations (Criterion II): There was no evidence of membership in associations which require outstanding achievements of their members.
Published Materials About the Petitioner (Criterion III): Insufficient evidence that published materials about the petitioner recognize his extraordinary achievements.
Original Contributions of Major Significance (Criterion V): The petitioner failed to show that his contributions have had a major significant impact on the field.
Key Points from the Decision
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The discussion centered on whether the petitioner’s contributions were of major significance to the field. Although the petitioner presented at a conference attended by nearly 20,000 participants, he did not demonstrate how his work significantly furthered the field. Further, letters from peers did not convincingly show that his work had been adopted by the field or had a significant impact.
Supporting Documentation
Peer Review Feedback: Recent peer review feedback from an open-access journal was considered, but it did not relate to eligibility at the time of the original petition filing.
Letters from Peers: Letters from experts in the field discussed the potential future impact of the petitioner’s research but did not establish that the impact had already occurred.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The petitioner has not met the burden of proof required to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Despite meeting two of the regulatory criteria, the overall evidence did not demonstrate extraordinary ability in the field of sciences.
Reasoning: The decision was based on the lack of substantial evidence proving sustained national or international acclaim and significant impact in the field.
Next Steps: The petitioner might consider gathering more robust evidence demonstrating the impact and recognition of his contributions or exploring other visa categories better aligned with his current achievements.
