EB1 Law Review AAO December 23 2011 Decision – Judging as a Peer Reviewer, et. al

EB1 Law Review by Law Offices of Chris M. Ingram 

Judging – As a Peer Reviewer

Evidence of Eligibility: 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3)(iv)

(iv) Evidence of the alien’s participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which classification is sought;

In our pursuit of EB1 Green Card and O1 Visa legal excellence we are systematically reviewing every Administrative Appeal Office decision that has been appealed. These cases are not our cases but any and all cases that have been appealed nationally. In continuously reviewing these decisions and learning from them we will continue to be the recognized leaders in EB1 Green Card and O1 Visa legal field as we continue preparing successful cases for aliens of extraordinary ability. 

December 23 2011 – Judging, et .al (p5)

Home

Source Case

Judging As a Peer Reviewer – (AAO – December 23 2011 – P5)

Context

In this case, the Petitioner (Indian), a physician researcher in the field of neuroradiology sought classification as an alien with extraordinary ability. At the time of the petition was made the Petitioner who was working as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Radiology in a university. The Petitioner submitted documentation showing he frequently served as a peer reviewer of journal articles and doctoral theses at the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research in India.

Upon initial review by USCIS this case was denied, but overturned on appeal to the Administrative Appeals Office. The main argument in over turning the original decision in this case was due the method of evaluation. It appears that the adjudicating officer did not first consider each of categories for which evidence was submitted and then carry out a “Final Merits” evaluation of all of the evidence combined.

Legal Authority

8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) – Evidence of the alien’s participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which classification is sought;

Issue

Does frequently serving as a peer reviewer of journal articles and the review of multiple doctoral theses satisfy the “Judging” category of 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3)(iv)

Conclusion

The AAO determined that the petitioner established that frequently serving as a peer reviewer of journal articles and doctoral theses were indeed sufficient to meet the judging criteria.

Cited cases:

AAO cited no case law, only a plain language interpretation of the regulation.

Copyright 2013