Date of Decision: August 22, 2022
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Transplant Surgeon
Field: Medicine
Nationality: [Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Participation as a judge of the work of others:
The petitioner participated as a judge of the work of others in his field, fulfilling the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv).
Authorship of scholarly articles:
The petitioner authored scholarly articles in professional publications, meeting the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi).
Criteria Not Met:
Membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements:
The petitioner did not establish that his memberships in the American College of Surgeons, Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Medical Society, and Sigma Xi required outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts.
Original contributions of major significance:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that his contributions had major significance in the field of transplant surgery.
Leading or critical role for organizations with a distinguished reputation:
The petitioner did not demonstrate that his roles within various organizations were leading or critical.
High salary or other significantly high remuneration:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to show that his earnings were significantly high compared to others in his field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Not applicable
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
Not applicable
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- Summary of findings: The petitioner’s research contributions were significant but did not reach the level of major significance required for this criterion.
- Key quotes or references: “The Petitioner has not established that his original contributions have major significance in the field.”
Participation as a Judge:
- Summary of findings: The petitioner served as a judge of the work of others in his field.
- Key quotes or references: “The Petitioner participated as a judge of the work of others, satisfying the criterion.”
Membership in Associations:
- Summary of findings: The petitioner’s memberships did not meet the regulatory requirements for outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts.
- Key quotes or references: “The Petitioner has not established that the named associations require outstanding achievements.”
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
- Summary of findings: The petitioner authored scholarly articles in professional publications.
- Key quotes or references: “The Petitioner authored scholarly articles, fulfilling the criterion.”
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
- Summary of findings: The petitioner did not demonstrate leading or critical roles within organizations.
- Key quotes or references: “The Petitioner has not established that he has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation.”
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
- Summary of findings: The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of high salary or remuneration.
- Key quotes or references: “The evidence submitted by the Petitioner does not establish that he has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services in relation to others in his field of transplant surgery.”
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable
Supporting Documentation
- Judging Work: Evidence of participation as a judge of the work of others.
- Scholarly Articles: Documentation of authored scholarly articles.
- Memberships: Documentation of memberships in professional associations.
- Research Contributions: Evidence of the petitioner’s research contributions and their impact on the field.
- Salary Data: Evidence of the petitioner’s salary and comparisons to other surgeons.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and did not provide sufficient evidence to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria for the EB-1 classification. The documentation lacked necessary details, corroborative evidence, and objective proof of significant contributions to the field.
Next Steps: The petitioner may consider gathering more detailed and comprehensive evidence to support future petitions or appeals.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
