Date of Decision: October 15, 2021
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Surgical Ophthalmologist
Field: Ophthalmology
Nationality: Chinese
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Judging the Work of Others
Description: The petitioner provided evidence of performing peer review for numerous scholarly journals, which was accepted as meeting the criteria for judging the work of others.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles
Description: The petitioner authored numerous scholarly articles in the medical field, which was accepted as fulfilling this criterion.
Criteria Not Met:
Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards for Excellence in the Field
The petitioner presented evidence of two awards. However, the USCIS found that these awards were not nationally or internationally recognized. The “Medical Science & Technology Award” was limited to the city level, and the “Certificate of Achievement” was found to be more related to research funding rather than a prize for past achievements.
Original Contributions of Major Significance in the Field
The petitioner’s contributions were not demonstrated to be of major significance. While the petitioner had publications and citations, the evidence did not show that these contributions had a substantial impact on the field of ophthalmology.
Leading or Critical Role for Organizations or Establishments That Have a Distinguished Reputation
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to show that her role at the hospital was leading or critical. The documents provided were not signed by individuals with personal knowledge of her role, and there were discrepancies in her job title.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner claimed awards that were not considered nationally or internationally recognized. The awards were found to be limited to local or city-level recognition, and one was associated with research funding rather than excellence in the field.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The petitioner presented evidence of publications in notable journals, but this alone was not sufficient to demonstrate major significance without further evidence of the impact of these publications.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
While the petitioner had published research and patents, the evidence did not show widespread implementation or major influence in the field. Citations to her work did not establish that her contributions were of major significance.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner met the criterion for participation as a judge through her peer review activities for scholarly journals.
Membership in Associations:
The petitioner did not pursue this criterion in the appeal, and thus it was not considered.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner met this criterion through her numerous scholarly publications.
Leading or Critical Role:
The evidence provided was insufficient to show that the petitioner held a leading or critical role within her organization.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
The petitioner did not pursue this criterion in the appeal, and thus it was not considered.
Supporting Documentation
Peer Review Evidence: Documentation of peer review activities for scholarly journals.
Scholarly Articles: Copies of scholarly articles authored by the petitioner.
Awards Documentation: Evidence of the “Medical Science & Technology Award” and the “Certificate of Achievement.”
Patents: Information on patents held by the petitioner and their citations.
Employment Verification: Certificates and organizational charts from the petitioner’s employer.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not meet the necessary criteria to establish extraordinary ability. The evidence provided did not sufficiently demonstrate that the petitioner’s contributions were of major significance or that she held a leading or critical role.
Next Steps: The petitioner may consider providing additional or more detailed evidence if reapplying, particularly focusing on demonstrating the national or international significance of her awards and contributions.
