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
- Reference Letters: Letters from peers and experts were submitted, but they lacked sufficient corroborating evidence to demonstrate the Beneficiary’s international recognition.
- 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.