Date of Decision: Aug. 22, 2022
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Transplant Surgeon
Field: Medical Sciences
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
(iv) Participation as a judge of the work of others:
The petitioner demonstrated evidence of serving as a judge of the work of others, fulfilling this criterion.
(vi) Authorship of scholarly articles:
The petitioner has authored multiple scholarly articles, meeting this criterion.
Criteria Not Met:
(ii) Membership in associations that require outstanding achievements:
The petitioner’s memberships in the American College of Surgeons, Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Medical Society, and Sigma Xi were evaluated but did not meet the requirements. Membership was either obtained after the petition filing date or did not involve recognition of outstanding achievements by national or international experts.
(v) Original contributions of major significance:
The petitioner’s research and published works were found to lack the required level of demonstrated major significance in the field.
(viii) Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments:
The petitioner did not sufficiently establish that their roles within various organizations were leading or critical to those organizations’ outcomes or distinguished reputation.
(ix) High remuneration for services:
The petitioner’s salary, although high, did not sufficiently prove it was significantly higher compared to peers within the specific field of transplant surgery.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Summary of findings: Not applicable, as no major, internationally recognized awards were submitted.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Summary of findings:
The provided materials about the petitioner were mainly social media mentions and brief articles, none of which established the major significance of the petitioner’s contributions.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
Summary of findings:
Letters and articles describing the petitioner’s work failed to substantiate the claims of major significance, lacking specific impact evidence or widespread recognition.
Participation as a Judge:
Summary of findings:
The criterion was met by demonstrating participation as a judge in the petitioner’s professional field.
Membership in Associations:
Summary of findings:
The memberships presented did not meet the requirement of outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts at the time of petition filing.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Summary of findings:
The petitioner’s authorship of scholarly articles was recognized, meeting this criterion.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
Summary of findings:
The roles held by the petitioner in various organizations were not sufficiently demonstrated to be leading or critical according to the specified criteria.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Summary of findings: Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Summary of findings:
Despite a high salary, the petitioner did not adequately demonstrate that the remuneration was significantly high in relation to peers in the specific field of transplant surgery.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Summary of findings: Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
- Letters of Membership
The petitioner’s membership letters from Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Medical Society and Sigma Xi, dated after the petition filing date, did not establish outstanding achievements as required. - Research Articles
Altmetric profiles and articles cited did not sufficiently show the major significance of contributions. - Expert Letters
Provided letters lacked specific analysis demonstrating the major significance and impact of the petitioner’s contributions.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not meet the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or documents that fulfill at least three of the ten lesser criteria. The totality of the material provided did not support a conclusion that the petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. The evidence did not demonstrate that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of their field.
Next Steps:
It is recommended that the petitioner consider alternative visa classifications or provide additional evidence addressing the deficiencies noted in the appeal decision.
Download the Full Petition Review Here.