Date of Decision: March 23, 2015
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Scientist
Field: Biomedical Drug Discovery Research
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Evidence of participation as a judge of the work of others
The petitioner served as a peer reviewer and editor for various scholarly journals and reviewed Ph.D. dissertations, meeting the requirements of this criterion.
Evidence of authorship of scholarly articles
The petitioner authored multiple published articles, abstracts, and conference proceedings in professional and major trade publications, fulfilling this criterion.
Criteria Not Met:
Evidence of original contributions of major significance
The letters and citations provided did not sufficiently demonstrate that the petitioner’s work had significantly impacted the field by the time of filing.
Evidence of the display of work at artistic exhibitions or showcases
The petitioner’s presentations at scientific conferences were not deemed comparable to artistic exhibitions or showcases.
Evidence of performance in a leading or critical role for organizations with a distinguished reputation
The petitioner’s roles as an editor and reviewer did not sufficiently demonstrate the significance of his impact on the organizations’ activities or establish the distinguished reputation of the organizations.
Evidence of commanding a high salary or significantly high remuneration
The petitioner did not provide evidence or assert eligibility under this criterion, resulting in abandonment of the claim.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
- The petitioner did not provide relevant evidence under this criterion.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
- No evidence provided to support this criterion.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- The letters described the novelty of the petitioner’s work but failed to establish significant impact on the field.
Participation as a Judge:
- Evidence included peer review activities and editorial roles.
Membership in Associations:
- No relevant evidence provided under this criterion.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
- The petitioner met this criterion with multiple publications.
Leading or Critical Role:
- Insufficient evidence provided regarding the impact and distinguished reputation of the organizations.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
- Conference presentations were not deemed comparable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
- No evidence provided under this criterion.
Commercial successes in the Performing Arts:
- Not applicable to the petitioner’s field.
Supporting Documentation
- Peer Review Activities: Documents showing the petitioner’s involvement in reviewing Ph.D. dissertations and scholarly journals.
- Authorship Evidence: Copies of the petitioner’s published articles, abstracts, and conference proceedings.
- Letters of Support: Testimonial letters from experts highlighting the petitioner’s contributions but lacking specifics on significant impact.
- Conference Participation: Evidence of presentations at scientific conferences.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal Dismissed
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to meet at least three of the regulatory criteria required for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. The letters and citations, while demonstrating novel work, did not establish a significant impact on the field.
Next Steps:
The petitioner may file a motion to reconsider or reopen the case with new evidence or arguments within 33 days of the decision.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
