Date of Decision: February 16, 2017
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1B (Outstanding Professor or Researcher)
Petitioner Information
Profession: Applied Scientist II
Field: Speech Recognition
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Judging the Work of Others: The beneficiary served as a judge of the work of others in the academic field, participating in peer review for journals and conferences.
- Original Contributions: The beneficiary made original contributions to the field, particularly in speech recognition and privacy-related issues.
- Scholarly Articles: The beneficiary authored several scholarly articles, which were published in respected journals.
Criteria Not Met:
- International Recognition: The evidence did not demonstrate that the beneficiary’s contributions were internationally recognized as outstanding.
- Offer of Employment: The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of a permanent research position being offered.
- Three Years of Experience: The petitioner failed to adequately document the beneficiary’s three years of postdoctoral research experience.
Key Points from the Decision
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The beneficiary’s work on privacy-preserving features in speech recognition was considered innovative but lacked substantial evidence of international impact.
Participation as a Judge: Although the beneficiary participated in peer reviews for reputable journals and conferences, this activity was deemed routine and not indicative of international recognition.
Membership in Associations: There was no mention of membership in associations that would indicate a level of recognition necessary for this classification.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The beneficiary authored scholarly articles; however, the citation and impact were not sufficient to establish international recognition.
Supporting Documentation
- Reference Letters: Provided by various professionals in the field, these letters attested to the beneficiary’s contributions but lacked specific evidence of international recognition.
- Citation Data: While citations were provided, they did not demonstrate significant reliance on the beneficiary’s work.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence of international recognition, a permanent offer of employment, and the necessary experience for the beneficiary.
Next Steps: The petitioner may consider gathering more comprehensive evidence or exploring other immigration categories that may better align with the beneficiary’s qualifications.