Date of Decision: April 29, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Senior Fellow
Field: Immunology
Nationality: [Not specified in the document]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Criterion 1: Participation as a Judge of the Work of Others
The petitioner provided evidence of reviewing papers for journals, demonstrating participation as a judge in the field of immunology.
Criterion 2: Authorship of Scholarly Articles
The petitioner authored scholarly articles in professional publications, meeting the criterion for authorship of scholarly articles.
Criteria Not Met:
Criterion 1: Original Contributions of Major Significance
The petitioner claimed original contributions such as “revolutionary scientific findings” in the field of immunology. However, the evidence provided, including the publication of his articles and citation counts, did not sufficiently demonstrate that these contributions were of major significance. The letters of recommendation did not sufficiently articulate the impact of his research on the field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Not applicable in this case.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The petitioner submitted articles that mentioned him, but the evidence did not meet the criterion for published material in professional or major trade publications. The provided publications did not sufficiently focus on his achievements in the field.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner claimed contributions to the field of immunology, but the evidence provided did not sufficiently demonstrate their major significance or widespread implementation.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner provided evidence of serving as a judge for various immunology journals, meeting this criterion.
Membership in Associations:
Not applicable in this case.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner demonstrated authorship of scholarly articles in professional publications, meeting this criterion.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Not applicable in this case.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable in this case.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not applicable in this case.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable in this case.
Supporting Documentation
Articles and Publications: Various articles and publications about the petitioner’s work.
Letters of Reference: Letters from colleagues and associates detailing the petitioner’s contributions and roles.
Judging Records: Evidence of the petitioner’s participation as a judge in various immunology journals.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to meet at least three of the required criteria for demonstrating extraordinary ability. While the petitioner demonstrated participation as a judge and authorship of scholarly articles, the evidence provided did not establish the major significance of his contributions to the field of immunology. The petitioner did not show that his professional accomplishments placed him among the small percentage at the very top of his field. Additionally, the petitioner did not provide evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required for the classification sought.
Next Steps:
The petitioner may consider gathering more substantial evidence of extraordinary ability, focusing on contributions with demonstrated major significance, awards with national or international recognition, and other achievements that demonstrate standing at the top of the field. Exploring other immigration options that may be more suitable given the evidence available is also recommended.
