dismissed EB-1A Case: Astrophysics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF G-A-0-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: May3,2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM l-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an astrophysicist, seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § ll53(b)(l)(A). This 
first preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who can demonstrate their 
extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements 
have been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Petitioner had a one-time achievement or met at least three of the 
evidentiary criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
On appeaL the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that the Petitioner me~ts three of 
the evidentiary criteria, and that she has sustained national or international acclaim and is one of that 
small percentage of individuals at the very top of her field of endeavor. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeaL 
l. LAW 
Section 203(b )( l )(A) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability if: 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics which 
has been demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have 
been recognized in the field through extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of extraordinary 
ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top or the field of endeavor'' 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation 
iv!auer o(G-A-0-
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate 
sustained acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time 
achievement (that is, a major. internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit 
this evidence, then he or she must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least 
three of the ten categories listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)- (x) (including items such as awards, 
published material in certain media, and scholarly articles). 
Satisfaction of at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this 
classilication. See Kazarianv. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing a two-part review 
where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the required number of criteria, 
considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 
126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 20 13): Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 20 II), af{"d, 683 
F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012): Mauer ofChawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (holding that 
the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality" and that U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) examines "each piece of evidence for relevance, 
probative value, and credibility, both individually and within the context of the totality of the 
evidence, to determine whether the t~1ct to be proven is probably true"). Accordingly, where a 
petitioner submits qualifying evidence under at least three criteria, we will determine whether the 
totality of the record shows sustained national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the 
individual is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a post-doctoral researcher in the field of astrophysics. Because she has not 
established that she has received a major, internationally recognized award, she must satisfy at least 
three of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). In denying the petition, the Director found 
that the Petitioner met two of the criteria, service as a judge of the work of others in her field under 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), and authorship of scholarly articles in her field under 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
On appeaL the Petitioner asserts that in addition to those two criteria, she has also made original 
scientilic contributions of major signilicance in her licld, satisfying the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(v). We have reviewed all of the evidence in the record, and find that it establishes that 
the Petitioner satislies the plain language requirements of at least three criteria. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Evidence of the alien ·s participation. either individually or on a panel, us a judge ol 
the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which 
classification is sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) 
The Director found that the Petitioner satisfied the requirements of this criterion. The record 
indicated that the Petitioner' has served as a reviewer for a workshop and three different scientific 
2 
.
Mafler (?(G-A-0-
journals on eight occasions. Accordingly, we agree with the Director's determination that the 
Petitioner meets the plain language of this criterion. 
Evidence qf" !he aliens· original scient(fic . scholarly. artislic . mhletic . or business­
related conlrihutio ns (~{major sign(ficance in the .field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
The Director did not provide a detailed analysis of the eviden ce submitted for this c riterion. The 
Petitione r bases her claim to eligibility on a softwa re package called used for modelling data 
from X-ray satellites, and her study of radio relics from galaxy clusters. The record includes four 
letters of support from researchers in the Petitioner's field, including one from 
her adviser at the · and three others descri bed as 
"independent advisory opinion s." 
Regarding the software, the record also includes emails from two researchers who are not the 
Petitioner's collabo rators, seeking guidance in the use of tbe software. On appeal, the Petitioner 
cites this evidence as estab lishing the adoption of her work by others in the field. However, this 
evidence shows only limited use of the softwa re by o ther researchers, and thus does not 
establish that its development constitutes a major contribution to the tield of astrophysics. 
Addition ally, the Petitioner contends that her work using several instruments to study large-scale 
shocks crea ted by the collision of galaxy clusters a mounts to an original contribution of major 
signiticance. indicates that the Petitioner 's research challenged the traditiona l view in the 
ti eld regarding the formation of' resulting radio relics. She also references a 2017 paper which cites 
to the work published by the Petitioner as a result of this s tudy. of the 
also points out two articles which relied upon the data results of the 
Petitioner's X-ray observations. of the 
also states that the Petitioner's studies on radio relics challenged the accep ted theory regard ing their 
formation, but indicates that the Petitioner 's results were not sufticien tly conclusive to reject the 
existing diffusive shock acceleration explanation. He also states that he "c ited 
repeatedly" in his own scientific publication on radio relic formation in galaxy cluster s. Finally, 
ref't:n;nces a different published urticle 
which used the Petitioner's data and 
findings , and states that the petitioner's work "has advanced the understanding of galaxy clusters 
through her research." 
While these letters indicate that the Petitioner's work on radio relic formatio n received attention in 
the field, they do not establi sh that this work, which the Petitioner indicates was dissemi nated in six 
published journal articles, made an impact commensurate with a contribution of major signilicancc 
in the field. Notably, stated that the alternative explanation for radio relic formation 
advanced by the Petitioner has not displaced the traditional explanation. Although 
indicates that the Petitioner has advanced the collective understanding on this topic, the record docs 
not establish that her contribution s have been of major signiticance. 
3 
.
Maller (~! G-A -0-
Furthermore, the Petitioner contends that the Director did not give proper evidentiary weight to the 
citations to her published work. She asserts that the total number of citations of her research does 
not accurately gauge her contributions to her field, and submits an article published in the j ournal 
Scientomelrics which proposes analyses to measure the productivity of a scientist as well as the 
impact of his or her work. We agree with the Petitioner that a focus solely on the total number of 
citations does not provide the most accurate picture of a research er's impact on his or her field, and 
note that the portion of the Director's decision discussing citati on counts was in response to data 
submitted bv the Petitioner. Citatio n rates provide evidence of discussion of the Petitioner' s work in 
' -the field, but do not, by themselves, provide suffic ient context to determine the nature of that 
discussi on or the adopt ion of her idea regarding radio relics. The letters written on the Petitioner ' s 
behalf provide additio.nal context, but do not demons trate the significance of the impact of her \.vork 
on the fi eld. 
The Petitione r also asserts that the Director did not give sufficient consideration to the ranking of the 
publications in which her work has been published, and submits what is described as a faculty 
handbook from the Univers ity. This document, undated and lacking 
verification of its source, supports the premise that impact factors and other means of ranking 
scholarly journals s hould be used to measure researcher productivity in an academic setting. The 
Petitioner has not establi shed that productivity equates to making a contribution of major 
significan ce. We do not presume that work published in a highly ranked publication will necessarily 
lead to a significant contributi on. Rather, we consider the totality of the evidence presented to 
determi ne if a petitioner' s work has had a signific ant impact on his or her field. 
Taken together, the evidence of the citations to th e Petitioner 's published findings and the reference 
letters from her fellow astrophysicists establi shes that the Petitioner h as been productiv e, and that 
her'publi shed data and findings have been relied upon by others in their own research. It does not 
demon strate that the Petitioner has made a contribution of major significance in the tield of 
astrophysics. Therefore, she has not met this 
criterio n. 
EFidence (?{I he alien ·s awhor ship of scholarly article s in the .field , in pr<~(essiona/ or 
major trade puhlicat ions or other majo r media. 8 C. F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v i) 
The Director found that the Petitioner met this criterion. The record establishes that the Petitioner 
has published more than 20 articles in peer-reviewed, scientific journals. Therefore , we agree with 
the Director's determination. 
III. CONCLUS ION 
The Petitioner is not eligible because she has not submitted the required initia l evidenc e of either a 
one-time achievem ent or documents that meet at l east three of the ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h )(3)(i)-(x). Thus, we need not fully add ress the totality of the materials in a final merits 
determination. Kazarian, 596 F.3d at I I 19-20. Nevertheless, we advise that we have reviewed the 
4 
Mutter o/Ci-A-0-
record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a finding that the Petitioner has 
established the level of expertise required for the classification sought 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed, 
Cite as Matter o/G-A-0-, ID# 1165232 (AAO May 3, 2018) 
5