Date of Decision: March 26, 2019
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1B (Outstanding Professor or Researcher)
Petitioner Information
Profession: Senior Staff Scientist
Field: Analytical Modelling
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Authorship of scholarly articles: The Beneficiary had published several papers, primarily on non-destructive testing (NDT) of composite materials, and his work was cited by other researchers.
Original contributions of major significance: The Beneficiary contributed to developing advanced analytical models that were implemented in the financial sector, helping mitigate fraud in financial transactions.
Participation as a judge of the work of others: The Beneficiary served as a peer reviewer for scientific journals and conferences, reflecting recognition in his field.
Criteria Not Met:
International recognition as outstanding: The evidence provided did not sufficiently demonstrate that the Beneficiary’s work was recognized as outstanding on an international level, particularly in comparison to other researchers in the field of analytical modelling.
Impact of contributions: The evidence did not establish that the Beneficiary’s analytical models stood apart from those of competitors, nor did it show significant recognition from industry sources.
Key Points from the Decision
Original Contributions of Major Significance: The Beneficiary’s work in analytical modeling for financial fraud detection was acknowledged by colleagues but lacked broader industry recognition or evidence of international acclaim.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The Beneficiary’s publications were primarily focused on NDT for composite materials, with some citations by other researchers, but this did not sufficiently demonstrate outstanding international recognition.
Participation as a Judge: The Beneficiary’s role as a peer reviewer for several scientific journals was noted, but the evidence provided was not adequate to confirm that this service reflected international recognition beyond that of an average researcher.
Supporting Documentation
- Reference Letters: Letters from colleagues and other researchers that described the Beneficiary’s work and its application but lacked sufficient details on the broader impact or international recognition.
- Published Articles: Copies of the Beneficiary’s articles and some citing articles, though many of these were incomplete or lacked detailed analysis of their impact.
- Grant and Fellowship Awards: Documentation of a $300,000 grant and a $45,000 fellowship, which demonstrated regional but not international recognition.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed. The evidence did not sufficiently establish that the Beneficiary is internationally recognized as an outstanding researcher in the field of analytical modeling.
Reasoning: The decision emphasized that while the Beneficiary met the basic evidentiary criteria, the totality of the evidence did not demonstrate the required level of international acclaim or distinction in his field.
Next Steps: The petitioner may consider providing more robust evidence of the Beneficiary’s international recognition, such as industry awards, broader citations, or testimonials from unaffiliated experts with a more global perspective.
