Date of Decision: July 31, 2018
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1B (Outstanding Professor or Researcher)
Petitioner Information
Profession: Formulation Scientist
Field: Pharmaceutical Science
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The petitioner provided evidence that the beneficiary authored scholarly articles and book chapters, particularly in the field of pharmaceutical science, focusing on drug delivery systems.
- Original Contributions to the Field: Evidence was provided showing that the beneficiary made original contributions to pharmaceutical science, particularly in drug delivery systems for insulin.
- Judging the Work of Others: The beneficiary has participated as a peer reviewer for scholarly journals, which is a recognized activity in the academic community.
Criteria Not Met:
- International Recognition: The evidence submitted did not demonstrate that the beneficiary’s work had achieved the level of international recognition required for this visa category. The peer review activities, while significant, were not sufficient to establish the beneficiary as outstanding internationally.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
- Summary of findings: The decision did not mention any significant awards or prizes that were used to support the petition.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
- Summary of findings: The materials about the petitioner were considered insufficient in establishing international recognition. The letters and citations did not show significant reliance on the petitioner’s work.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- Summary of findings: While the beneficiary’s work was acknowledged as contributing to the field, it did not meet the standard of international recognition as required by USCIS.
Participation as a Judge:
- Summary of findings: Participation in peer review was acknowledged but was not deemed sufficient evidence of international recognition.
Membership in Associations:
- Summary of findings: Membership in professional associations was not sufficiently highlighted in the decision, indicating it was not a strong point of the appeal.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
- Summary of findings: The beneficiary’s publications were acknowledged, but the frequency and impact of these publications were not sufficient to establish the required level of recognition.
Supporting Documentation
- Peer Review Articles: Various articles reviewed by the beneficiary were submitted, demonstrating her involvement in the academic community.
- Reference Letters: Several reference letters were submitted, but they were not convincing enough to demonstrate international recognition.
- Publications: The beneficiary’s publications were in journals with high impact factors, but the overall impact was not demonstrated as substantial.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed, and the original decision to deny the petition was upheld.
Reasoning: The petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the beneficiary’s work had achieved the required level of international recognition in the field of pharmaceutical science. The evidence provided met some of the criteria but did not satisfy the overarching requirement of outstanding international recognition.
Next Steps: It is recommended that the petitioner consider gathering more compelling evidence, particularly showing international recognition and impact, before considering a new petition or further legal action.
