EB-1B Outstanding Researcher USCIS Appeal Review – Principal Research Scientist – SEP172021_01B3203


Date of Decision: SEPT. 17, 2021
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1B (Outstanding Professor or Researcher)


Petitioner Information

Profession: Principal Research Scientist
Field: Cell Biology and Physiology
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 at various student competitions and reviewed research papers. However, these activities did not demonstrate international recognition within her academic field.
  • Authorship of scholarly articles: The Beneficiary authored several articles, including a book chapter, but the impact of these works did not meet the threshold for international recognition as outstanding.

Criteria Not Met:

  • Original contributions of major significance: While the Beneficiary’s work was acknowledged by peers, it did not rise to the level of international recognition or outstanding achievement in her field.
  • Awards and prizes: The Beneficiary received internal awards and a research grant; however, these were not recognized as major international awards in her field.
  • Membership in associations: The Beneficiary’s memberships in various professional organizations did not require outstanding achievements or signify international recognition.

Key Points from the Decision

Awards and Prizes Won:

  • Summary: The Beneficiary received several internal “Impact Awards” from her employer and a research grant during her graduate studies.
  • Key Quotes: “These awards reflect internal recognition from the Beneficiary’s employer rather than international recognition in her field.”

Published Materials About the Petitioner:

  • Summary: The Beneficiary authored multiple scholarly articles and a book chapter. Citations of her work were noted, but they did not demonstrate widespread influence in the field.
  • Key Quotes: “The Petitioner has not demonstrated that the number of citations received by her publications represents interest at a level consistent with outstanding achievement in the academic field.”

Original Contributions of Major Significance:

  • Summary: The Beneficiary’s research was acknowledged, but the impact was not sufficient to meet the criteria for international recognition as outstanding.
  • Key Quotes: “The evidence does not support a determination that participating in her company’s internal product safety evaluation processes is sufficient to set the Beneficiary apart as outstanding from others in the field.”

Participation as a Judge:

  • Summary: The Beneficiary participated in judging student competitions, but these activities did not demonstrate international recognition in her field.
  • Key Quotes: “The Petitioner has not established how the Beneficiary’s peer review experience contributes to establishing that she is internationally recognized as outstanding in her academic field.”

Membership in Associations:

  • Summary: The Beneficiary was a member of several professional organizations, but these memberships did not require outstanding achievements or confer international recognition.
  • Key Quotes: “The record does not include evidence showing that these organizations require outstanding achievements of their members or that acceptance into their membership signifies international recognition.”

Authorship of Scholarly Articles:

  • Summary: The Beneficiary authored several articles, including a book chapter, but the citations and influence of these works did not meet the standard for international recognition.
  • Key Quotes: “The Petitioner has not demonstrated that the number of citations received by her publications represents interest at a level consistent with outstanding achievement in the academic field.”

Supporting Documentation

  1. Reference Letters: Letters from peers and experts were submitted, but they lacked sufficient corroborating evidence to demonstrate the Beneficiary’s international recognition.
  2. Research Contributions: Evidence of research work and patents was provided but did not demonstrate significant international impact.

Conclusion

Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed as the evidence provided did not establish that the Beneficiary is internationally recognized as outstanding in her academic field.

Reasoning: The Petitioner met the initial evidence requirements, but the totality of the evidence did not demonstrate the requisite international recognition.

Next Steps: It is recommended that the Petitioner review the evidentiary standards for EB-1B classification and consider additional evidence or alternative immigration pathways.


Download the Full Petition Review Here

Izu Okafor
Izu Okafor

Izu Okafor is a filmmaker, project manager, and video editor with a rich background in the film industry. He has refined his craft under the mentorship of industry giants like AMAA VFx Winner Stephen Onaji Onche and AMVCA-winning producer Chris Odeh. Izu is one of 60 participants in the prestigious British Council Film Lab Africa Accelerator Program. His experience spans roles at Sixar Studio, Sozo Films, and Hanuluo Studios, with work on projects like "Wahala" and "Chiugo." He recently produced his debut feature, "Dinobi," which has garnered international festival recognition. Beyond filmmaking, Izu is dedicated to social entrepreneurship and youth empowerment, mentoring future leaders through Uncommon Me International.

Articles: 448

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *