Date of Decision: July 22, 2019
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Surgeon and Researcher
Field: Orthopedics and Surgery
Nationality: Brazil
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Criterion 1: Scholarly Articles
The Petitioner authored scholarly articles in professional publications, such as the Brazilian Journal of Orthopedics and the Journal of Spinal Disorders & Techniques.
Criterion 2: Participation as a Judge
The Petitioner served as a member of the resident selection committee at a hospital, evaluating candidates for admission into its orthopedics residency program.
Criterion 3: High Salary
Documentation indicated that the Petitioner received a high salary relative to other orthopedists.
Criteria Not Met:
Criterion 1: Awards and Prizes
The awards presented by the Petitioner did not rise to the level of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field.
Criterion 2: Published Materials About the Petitioner
The Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence demonstrating that any published materials about him were in major media or professional publications.
Criterion 3: Original Contributions of Major Significance
The Petitioner did not demonstrate that his contributions to the field were original and of major significance, as required by the criteria.
Criterion 4: Membership in Associations
The memberships provided did not reflect outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts.
Criterion 5: Authorship of Scholarly Articles
While the Petitioner authored scholarly articles, he did not show a level of interest in his work commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim.
Criterion 6: Leading or Critical Role
The Petitioner did not establish that his roles in his organizations were leading or critical for the organizations overall.
Criterion 7: Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases
Not applicable.
Criterion 8: Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration
While the Petitioner demonstrated a high salary, it was not shown to be commensurate with the top of the field.
Criterion 9: Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts
Not applicable.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The Petitioner presented letters stating he received a “Best Poster Award” and a “Best Oral Theme Award” at a congress in 2007. However, these awards were not recognized as indicative of sustained national or international acclaim.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The publications provided did not demonstrate that the Petitioner garnered significant attention in the field. Many articles were not about him or did not rise to the level of major media.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to show his work had a significant impact on the overall field. His claimed contributions were not demonstrated to be of major significance.
Participation as a Judge:
While the Petitioner participated in evaluating candidates, it was not shown that this role placed him at the top of his field or garnered significant attention.
Membership in Associations:
The memberships did not require outstanding achievements as judged by recognized experts, thus not contributing to the required level of acclaim.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The Petitioner authored various research articles, but did not demonstrate that these publications resulted in sustained national or international acclaim.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The Petitioner’s roles at his institutions were not shown to be leading or critical for the organizations overall.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The evidence of high salary was not sufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner was among the top in his field.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
- Letters from Brazilian Society of Orthopedics and Traumatology: Stated the Petitioner received awards, but did not demonstrate these awards’ significance.
- Publications: Provided screenshots from various websites, but did not demonstrate major media status.
- Recommendation Letters: Summarized the Petitioner’s medical training and experience, but lacked detailed information showing significant impact on the field.
- Certificates of Participation as Evaluator: Did not provide information on whose work was judged or the significance of the evaluations.
- Evidence of Salary: Demonstrated a high salary but did not show it was commensurate with the top of the field.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not meet the required criteria to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and did not show he is among the top in his field.
Next Steps: The Petitioner may consider gathering more substantial evidence that aligns with the criteria for extraordinary ability and reapplying.
