dismissed EB-1A Case: Astrophysics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 29, 2024 In Re: 34771665 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in the sciences. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(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 although the Petitioner 
satisfied at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria, as required, he did not show his sustained national 
or international acclaim and demonstrate he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of 
endeavor. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence . 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(1 )(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to individuals with 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 , provided that the individual seeks to enter the United States to continue 
work in the area of extraordinary ability, and the individual'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 of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation 
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 achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a 
major, internationally recognized award) or 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). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether 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. See Kazarian v. 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. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not claimed or established he received a major, internationally recognized 
award, he must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
The Director determined the Petitioner met three of the claimed evidentiary criteria relating to judging 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), original contributions of major significance at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), 
and authorship of scholarly articles at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 1 However, the Director concluded 
the Petitioner did not show he garnered sustained national or international acclaim and his 
achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise, demonstrating he is one of that small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of the field. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As indicated above, we will evaluate whether the Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of 
the evidence, his sustained national or international acclaim, 2 he is one of the small percentage at the 
very top of the field of endeavor, and his achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation. In a final merits determination, we analyze an individual's 
accomplishments and weigh the totality of the evidence to determine if his successes are sufficient to 
demonstrate that he has extraordinary ability in the field of endeavor. 3 See section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of 
1 The Director's decision simply indicates the Petitioner's satisfaction of these three criteria without explaining his 
determination. Although the record shows the Petitioner's experience in peer reviewing a journal article and authoring 
scholarly articles in professional publications, thereby meeting the judging and scholarly articles criteria, the record does 
not reflect his achievement of making original contributions of major significance in the field. Again, the Director did not 
explain, including identifying the evidence, which original contributions the Petitioner made and how he determined them 
to be majorly significant. While we do not concur with the Director that the Petitioner fulfilled at least three criteria, we 
will evaluate the totality of the evidence since the Director conducted a final merits determination, including the 
documentation relating to the original contributions of major significance criterion. 
2 See 6 USC1S Policy Manual F.2(A)(l), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual (stating that such acclaim must be 
maintained and providing Black's Law Dictiona1y 's definition of "sustain" is "to support or maintain, especially over a 
long period of time ... To persist in making (an effort) over a long period of time"). 
3 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(2) (instructing that USCTS officers should consider the petition in its 
entirety to detennine eligibility according to the standard- sustained national or international acclaim and the achievements 
2 
the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. In this matter, we agree 
with the Director that the Petitioner has not established his eligibility.4 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that his "publication and citation record show that he has extraordinary 
ability in the field of astrophysics and he is one of the small percentage of scientists who have risen to 
the top of their field." He contends that the Director did not properly evaluate evidence in the record, 
and that this evidence establishes that he qualifies under this immigrant visa classification's high 
standards. The Petitioner states that the Director did not properly analyze his peer review service, 
research contributions, co-authorship of scientific articles, citation evidence, letters of support, and 
sustained acclaim in astrophysics. Below, we will evaluate the totality of the evidence based on the 
documentation presented to the Director in the context of the final merits determination. 5 
On the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers, the Petitioner provided the following 
information: 
Part 5 - Additional Information About the Petitioner 
Section 11. Occupation: Astrophysicist 
Part 6 - Basic Information About the Proposed Employment 
Section 1. Job Title: Data Scientist 
Section 3. Nontechnical Description of Job: Collect and analyze data to elucidate the 
properties and evolution of stellar clusters in the Milky Way and local group galaxies 
to explain the mechanisms behind galaxy formation and evolution. 
As it relates to the Petitioner's background, according to the initial cover letter: 
[The Petitioner] is an established expert in astrophysics, and within this broader field, 
he is one of the few leading specialists in the star formation history of the Milky Way 
and the Local Group, chemical evolution of stellar clusters, and cluster ensemble 
photometry. [The Petitioner] has achieved a consistent and notable record of success 
and influence in this area of study and is especially well-known for his investigation of 
the enhancement of stellar chemical abundance measurements. Furthermore, [the 
Petitioner's] work has received fonding from prestigious organizations, including the 
Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the Crafoord Foundation, the Office of Science, the 
National Science Foundation (NSF), the Olle Engkvist Foundation, the Research 
have been recognized in the field of expertise, indicating that the person is one of that small percentage who has risen to 
the very top of the field of endeavor). 
4 In the final merits analysis. the Director's decision discussed the documentation relating to the Petitioner's peer review 
activity, published work, citation evidence, graduate student research position at and letters of support commenting 
on his astrophysics research, and explained why that evidence, as part of the entirety of the record, was insufficient to 
demonstrate the Petitioner's sustained national or international acclaim and that he is one of that small percentage who has 
risen to the very top of the field. 
5 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(2). 
3 
Corporation for Science Advancement (RCSA), the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration (NASA), and the Heising-Simmons Foundation. 
The record indicates that the Petitioner earned both a Master of Science degree (2020) and a Ph.D. 
(2021) in Physics from He served as a graduate researcher at under the 
supervision of Dr. from August 2016 until August 2021. The Petitioner has been 
employed at as a a data scientist since graduating from in August 2021. 6 
As discussed further below, the Petitioner has performed astrophysics research as a graduate student 
at coauthored several research articles that have been widely cited, and peer reviewed one article 
for Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. However, in considering the totality of the 
evidence, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his achievements are reflective of a "career of 
acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 
1990). Nor has the Petitioner shown that he has sustained acclaim as astrophysics researcher after his 
graduation from in August 2021. 7 Furthermore, the Petitioner has not established that he has risen 
to that small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor and garnered national or international 
acclaim. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3). The commentary for the proposed regulations implementing 
section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act provides that the "intent of Congress that a very high standard be 
set for aliens of extraordinary ability is reflected in this regulation by requiring the petitioner to present 
more extensive documentation than that required" for lesser classifications. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 
30704 (July 5, 1991). Here, the Petitioner has not sufficiently documented a career that meets these 
very high standards. 
Regarding the Petitioner's service as a judge of the work of others, an evaluation of the significance 
of his experience is appropriate to determine if such evidence indicates the required extraordinary 
ability for this highly restrictive classification. See Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1121-22. The Petitioner 
provided one instance of his judging experience - a paper review for Monthly Notices of the Royal 
Astronomical Society in 2023. 8 Here, the Petitioner has not established that this single instance of 
peer review work contributes to a finding that he has a career of acclaimed work in the field or 
indicative of the required sustained national or international acclaim. See H.R. Rep. No. 101-723 at 
59 and section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. 
With the appeal, the Petitioner provides information from Oxford Academic regarding the editorial 
review process for Monthly Notices ofthe Royal Astronomical Society. This information states: 
6 The Petitioner describes his work at las follows: "I build, maintain, and improve key decision 
systems and predictive models that are keyto competitive advantage. I explore new data sources. 
both internal and external to I to improve and optimize model performance. Additionally, I read, research. 
design, and implement novel machine learning algorithms, technologies, and processes to better serve the customer and 
stay ahead of the competition." 
7 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(A)(l) (instructing that USCTS officers should determine if "the person 
continues to maintain a comparable level of acclaim in the field of expertise since the person was originally afforded that 
recognition. A person may, for example. have achieved national or international acclaim in the past but then failed to 
maintain a comparable level of acclaim thereafter."). The Petitioner has not demonstrated that his position with a leasing 
company since August 2021 is consistent with him having sustained acclaim in the field of astrophysics. 
8 In many scientific and academic fields, peer review is a routine part of the process through which articles are selected for 
publication or presentation at conferences. Participation in the peer review process does not automatically demonstrate 
national or international acclaim or place an individual at the very top of their field. 
4 
Manuscripts submitted MNRAS undergo editorial review by the Royal Astronomical 
Society, via a process of scholarly peer review. Each paper is assessed by a Scientific 
Editor ( a member of the editorial board), who in most cases will solicit the opinion of 
two or more expert reviewers ( also called referees). Reviewers critically examine the 
content of the paper and make recommendations on its suitability for publication. The 
Scientific Editor will then decide whether or not to endorse the reviewer's 
recommendations, and may request revisions or accept or reject the paper. 
Although the Petitioner's role as a reviewer involved making "recommendations" on the paper's 
suitability for publication, it is the Scientific Editor, a member of the journal's editorial board, who 
decides whether to endorse a reviewer's recommendations and who therefore ultimately determines if 
a paper is accepted or rejected. At issue here is the extent to which the Petitioner's review activity is 
commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim or a level of expertise placing him 
among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. Here, the Petitioner did not present 
documentation indicating Monthly Notices ofthe Royal Astronomical Society's specific requirements 
for selection of peer reviewers. For instance, reviewing manuscripts for a journal that selects its 
reviewers based on subject matter expertise would not provide strong support for the petition, because 
possessing expertise in a given field is a considerably lower threshold than having sustained national 
or international acclaim at the very top of the field. 
While the record indicates that the Petitioner has reviewed one paper for Monthly Notices ofthe Royal 
Astronomical Society, he has not demonstrated, for example, how his limited experience in reviewing 
the works of others compares to others at the very top of the field. In addition, the Petitioner did not 
establish, for instance, that he garnered wide attention from the field based on his peer review work. 
Moreover, serving as a peer reviewer does not automatically demonstrate that an individual has 
extraordinary ability and sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of his field. Matter 
of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) (stating that even athletes performing at the 
major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary ability" standard). Without evidence 
that differentiates the Petitioner from others in his field, such as evidence that he has a consistent 
history of reviewing or judging recognized, acclaimed experts in his field, he has not shown that his 
narrow judging experience places him among that small percentage who has risen to the very top of 
the field of endeavor. 9 See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) and 56 Fed. Reg. at 30704. 
Likewise, authorship and publication do not automatically place an individual at the top of their field. 
The Petitioner indicated that he has published "his work in 7 peer reviewed journal articles (1 of them 
first-authored) and 1 abstract," including The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, The 
Astronomical Journal, and The Astrophysical Journal. 10 However, the Petitioner did not demonstrate 
9 For example, the record does not include documentation that sets the Petitioner apart from others in the field, such as 
evidence that he has completed reviews for a substantial number of distinguished journals or conferences relative to others 
in his field, served in editorial positions for highly regarded journals or publications, or chaired prominent evaluation 
committees for reputable scientific conferences. 
10 The Petitioner presented rankings information for these journals from Google Scholar Metrics and journal impact factor 
data from IOPscience. A high journal ranking or impact factor is reflective of a publication's overall citation rate. It does 
not, however, show the influence of any particular author or demonstrate how an individual's research has affected their 
field. 
5 
I 
that his publication record is consistent with having a career of acclaimed work, sustaining national or 
international acclaim, and being among the small percentage at the very top of his field. See H.R. 
Rep. No. at 59, section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The Petitioner, for 
instance, did not show the significance of his authorships or how his publication record compares to 
other individuals who are viewed to be at the very top of the field. 11 
Moreover, the citation history or other evidence of the influence of written work can be an indicator 
to determine the impact and recognition that the Petitioner's publications have had on the field and 
whether such influence has been sustained. Such an analysis at the final merits determination stage is 
appropriate pursuant to Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1122. In response to the Director's request for evidence, 
the Petitioner submitted his Google Scholar profile which lists his research articles and indicates that 
they had received 2,159 cumulative citations. This Google Scholar information indicated that his 
articles. entitled I 
I (2020), I 
(2022), I 
I (2020), I 
I (2020), I 
1(2021), and I 
I (2020), each received 1235, 501, 387, 26, 9, and 1 citation( s ), respectively. None of his 
remaining articles, including his abstract from the I IMeeting, have 
received any citations. 
In the decision denying the petition, the Director stated that "of the six articles listed that have received 
citations, none have fewer than thirteen listed authors, and the two most cited articles list well over 
one-hundred authors and account for over eighty percent of all citations in the record." The Director 
further noted that "the third most cited article lists the Petitioner as twenty-second of twenty-three 
authors and accounts for over seventeen percent of all citations in the record." We agree with the 
Director's conclusion that the record lacks evidence showing that the Petitioner has enjoyed sustained 
national or international claim as a result his level of contribution to these articles. 12 The Petitioner 
has not shown that his specific contribution to these articles as one of numerous coauthors has attracted 
a level of interest in the field indicative of him earning national or international acclaim. See section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. In addition, the Petitioner has not established that his role as a coauthor has 
garnered him attention at a level consistent with being among that small percentage at the very top of 
his field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) and 56 Fed. Reg. at 30704. 
11 See 6 users Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(2) (providing examples where evidence in the record may help in 
determining "whether in a totality analysis that considers all of the evidence, the person is among the small percentage at 
the top of the field and has sustained national or international acclaim"). 
12 The fourth most cited article (26 citations), entitled 
was first authored by the Petitioner. See 6 users Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(2) (indicating that there may be 
particular prestige or acclaim associated with publication in highly ranked journals, "especially if the person is the most 
significant contributor to the published article, a senior author, or the sole author of the article." Here, the Petitioner has 
not shown that his specific contribution to any of the three most-cited articles he coauthored was particularly significant. 
6 
Similarly, the Petitioner did not show that his presented material at the 
Meeting (2022) garnered him any national or international acclaim in the field. 13 See section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. Moreover, the Petitioner did not demonstrate the significance of his 
presentation or how it impacted the field consistent with a very high standard requiring the petitioner 
to submit more extensive documentation than that required for lesser classifications. See 56 Fed. Reg. 
at 30704. 
The Petitioner also provided data from Clarivate Analytics (InCites Essential Science Indicators) 
regarding baseline citation rates and percentiles by year of publication for the space science field. The 
Petitioner contends that three of his "published papers have received enough citations to rank among 
the top 0.1 % of the most-cited papers in space science in their respective years of publication," but 
based on their large number of coauthors, he has not shown that his specific contribution to any of the 
three most-cited articles he coauthored was particularly significant. Additionally, the Petitioner 
presented an article in Scientometrics written by Lutz Bornmann and Werner Marx, entitled "How to 
evaluate individual researchers working in the natural and life sciences meaningfully? A proposal of 
methods based on percentiles of citations." This article presents recommendations for "how to 
evaluate individual researchers in the natural and life sciences" for purposes of fonding and promotion 
or hiring decisions. The authors state that "publications which are among the 10% most cited 
publications in their subject area are as a rule called highly cited or excellent" and that "the top 10% 
based excellence indicator" should be given "the highest weight when comparing the scientific 
performance of single researchers." While the authors offer proposed methods for bibliometric 
analysis of research performance, the record does not indicate that their methods have been accepted 
and implemented by the academic community. Moreover, with respect to citation information from 
Google Scholar, the authors advise against "using Google Scholar (GS) as a basis for bibliometric 
analysis. Several studies have pointed out that GS has numerous deficiencies for research evaluation." 
Additionally, the Petitioner submitted examples of some of the research articles, including 
international articles, which cited to his work. For instance, an article authored b et. aet. al., entitled 
cites to the 
~-----------------------------------~ This
article does not distinguish or highlight the Petitioner's work from the more than 80 other papers 
referenced in the article or otherwise demonstrate that his work places him among that small 
percentage at the very top of his field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The Petitioner has not established 
how citations of this kind translate into national or international acclaim. Additional research article 
examples presented by the Petitioner generally discuss the cited source articles in similar terms and 
there is no special emphasis on his specific work. The submitted articles acknowledge he and his 
coauthors contributions to the advancement of what appears to be an active field of research but are 
not indications that the Petitioner has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of his 
field. 
l
The research articles coauthored by the Petitioner indicate in their acknowledgements section that the 
authors received support from organizations such as the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the Crafoord 
13 This presentation was coauthored with Dr. and five others and has not received any citations. 
7 
Foundation, the Office of Science, the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Olle Engkvist 
Foundation, the Research Corporation for Science Advancement (RCSA), the National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration (NASA), and the Heising-Simmons Foundation. We note that scientific 
research projects are typically supported by grants from a variety of public and private sources. The 
past achievements of the principal investigator are a factor in grant proposals because the funding 
institution must be assured that the investigator is capable of performing the proposed research. Here, 
the Petitioner has not provided copies of the research grants from the aforementioned organizations 
listing him as a principal investigator or otherwise identifying his role. Regardless, he has not shown 
that his participation in these research projects as a graduate student signifies sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top of his field. 
In addition, the Petitioner provided several recommendation letters that summarized his work. 14 For 
example, regarding his work at Dr. I I the Petitioner's Ph.D. supervisor and an 
associate professor at D stated that he "has helped uncover the information encoded in integrated 
light from star clusters in the Milky Way and neighboring galaxies." Dr.I I further asserted 
that the Petitioner's research is "paving the way to publish a catalog of light curves for 348 stellar 
clusters in these galaxies," but she did not provide specific examples indicating that his specific work 
is majorly significant in the field or has otherwise risen to the level of a contribution that is nationally or 
internationally acclaimed. 
Dr.I lan assistant professor at the indicated that the Petitioner's work 
"shed light on the varying chemical abundances of stars in the APOGEE survey and enhance the 
reliability of its data, providing fellow researchers in the field with more reliable information for their 
research," but the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his specific work has affected the field in a 
substantial way that is indicative of national or international acclaim at the very top of field of 
astrophysics. We recognize that research must add information to the pool of knowledge in some way 
in order to be accepted for publication, presentation, funding, or academic credit, but not every 
research finding that broadens knowledge in a particular field renders an individual's work nationally 
or internationally acclaimed. 
In addition, Dr.I I Professor of Astronomy at __________ and coauthor 
of multiple papers with the Petitioner, asserted that the Petitioner's work helped to improve the 
APOGEE survey data "uncertainty estimation approach and expand it to the entire 16th data release. 
The resulting approach is utilized throughout the three articles as a key method for cleaning, validating, 
and ensuring the reliability of the data." Dr. I I further indicated that the Petitioner's "efforts 
have helped to ensure simpler, broader access to this valuable astronomical data." While we 
acknowledge that Petitioner's work has been used by others and has affected his field to some extent, 
he has not shown that his specific methods and findings rise to the level of contributions of major 
significance in the astrophysics field or have otherwise affected the field at a level commensurate with 
national or international acclaim at the very top of the field. 
The recommendation letters offered by the Petitioner do not contain sufficient information and 
explanation, nor does the record include adequate corroborating evidence, to show that he is viewed 
by the overall field, rather than by a solicited few, as being among that small percentage at the very 
14 While we discuss a sampling of the letters of support, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
8 
top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). Further, the Petitioner has not established 
that he has made impactful or influential contributions in the greater field reflecting a career of 
acclaimed work in the field, garnering the required sustained national or international acclaim. See 
H.R. Rep. No. at 59 and section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. The letters describe the Petitioner's work 
without showing how it has resulted in widespread acclaim from his field, that he drew significant 
attention from the greater field, or that the overall field considers him to be at the very top of the field 
of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) and 56 Fed. Reg. at 30704. 
The record as a whole, including the evidence discussed above, does not establish the Petitioner's 
eligibility for the benefit sought. Here, the Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, 
intended for individuals already at the top of their respective fields, rather than those progressing 
toward the top. Price, 20 I&N Dec. at 954 (concluding that even major league level athletes do not 
automatically meet the statutory standards for classification as an individual of "extraordinary 
ability,"); Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 131 (internal quotation marks omitted) (finding that the 
extraordinary ability designation is "extremely restrictive by design,"); Hamal v. Dep 't ofHomeland 
Sec. (Hamal II), No. 19-cv-2534, 2021 WL 2338316, at *5 (D.D.C. June 8, 2021), aff'd, 2023 WL 
1156801 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 31, 2023) (determining that EB-1 visas are "reserved for a very small 
percentage of prospective immigrants"). See also Hamal v. Dep 't ofHomeland Sec. (Hamal I), No. 
19-cv-2534, 2020 WL 2934954, at* 1 (D.D.C. June 3, 2020) ( citing Kazarian, 596 at 1122 (upholding 
denial of petition of a published theoretical physicist specializing in non-Einsteinian theories of 
gravitation) (stating that "[c]ourts have found that even highly accomplished individuals fail to win 
this designation")); Lee v. Ziglar, 237 F. Supp. 2d 914, 918 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (finding that "arguably 
one of the most famous baseball players in Korean history" did not qualify for visa as a baseball 
coach). 
After consideration of the totality of the evidence, including the Petitioner's published research, 
citation record, peer review service, and research funding, as well as the opinions of his colleagues in 
the field, we conclude that this documentation does not sufficiently establish his sustained national or 
international acclaim or show that he is among that small percentage who has risen to the very top of 
the field of endeavor. Nor does the Petitioner's evidence demonstrate that he has sustained acclaim in 
the field of astrophysics since his graduation from Din August 2021. 15 The Petitioner has not shown 
the significance of his work is indicative of the required sustained national or international acclaim or 
it is consistent with a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. See H.R. 
Rep. No. at 59; see also section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. While the Petitioner need not establish that 
there is no one more accomplished to qualify for the classification sought, the record is insufficient to 
demonstrate that he is among the small percentage at the top of his field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the 
reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered 
as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
15 The Petitioner has not demonstrated that his position with a leasing company since August 2021 is consistent with having 
maintained his acclaim in the field of astrophysics. 
9 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
10