dismissed EB-1A Case: Autophagy Science

u~s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services. 
MATTER OF Q-L-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
.DATE: MAR. 4, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
\ PETIT~ON: FQRM 1-14.0, IMMIGRANT PETITION fOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an autophagy scientist, 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. 
§ ll 53(b )(1 )(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 (NSC) initially approved the Form 1-140, Immigrant 
Petition for Alien Worker. However, the Director subsequently revoked the petition, concluding that 
the Petitioner had satisfied only two of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, of which she must meet at 
least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional documentation and a briet: arguing that she meets at least 
three of the ten criteria. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. 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 m the field through 
exte~siv~ documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work m the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
· United States: 
Matter ofQ-L~ 
The tel'.ffi "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 r_egulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth two options for sati"sfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate 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 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 n1.aterial in certain media, and 
scholarly-articles). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner to submit comparable 
material if he or she is able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5~h)(3)(i)-(x) do not 
readily apply to the individual's occupation. • · 
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. USC IS, 596 F .3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) 
(discussing a two-part revie~ 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.p.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCJS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). This two-step analysis is con·sistent with our holding that the "truth is to be 
determined not by the quantity ·of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we 
examine "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 fact to be proven is probably 
true." Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
With respect to revocations, section 205 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1155, states, in pertinent part, that the 
Secretary of Homeland Security "may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, 
revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204." 
Regarding ~evocation on notice, the: Board of Immigration Appeals has stated: 
In Malfer of Estime, ... this Board stated that a notice of intention to revoke a visa 
petition is properly issued for "good and sufficient cause" where the evidence of record 
at the time the notice is issued, if unexplained and unrebutted, would warrant a denial 
of the visa petition based upon the petitioner's failure to meet his burden of proof. The 
decision to revoke will be sustained where the evidence of record at the time the 
decision is rendered, including any evidence or explanation submitted by the petitioner 
in rebuttal to the notice of intention to revoke, would warrant such denial. 
Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 590 (BIA 1988) (citing Matter qf"Estime, 19 I&N Dec. 450 (BIA 
1987)). 
By itself, the Director's realization that a petition was incorrectly approved is good and sufficient 
cause for the revocati_on of the approval of an immigrant petition. Id. The approval of a visa petition 
J 
2 
.
Matter of Q-L-
vests no rights in the beneficiary of the petition, as approval of a visa petition is but a preliminary step 
in the visa application proces~. Id. at 589. A beneficiary is not, by mere approval of the petition, 
entitled to an immigrant visa. Id. 
· II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a staff scientist _in the Department of Pathology and Immunology at 
of Medicine in Missouri. Because she has not indicated or established 
that she has received a major, internationally recognized award, she must satisfy at least three of the 
alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). In revoking the petition, the Director 
found that the Petitioner met only two of the initial evidentiary criteria, judging urider 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(iv) and scholarly articles under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). The record reflects that the 
Petitioner served as a peer reviewer of manuscripts for journals. In addition, she authored scholarly 
articles in professional publications. Accordingly , we agree with the Director that the Petitioner 
fulfilled the judging and scholarly articles criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that she meets one additional criterion, discussed below. We have 
reviewed all of the evidence in the record and conclude that it does not support a finding that the 
Petitioner satisfies the requirements of at least thr~e criteria. · 
Evidence of the alien ·s original scientific , scholarly. artistic. athletic. or business-related 
contributions of major sign[ficance in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
. . 
In order to satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner must establish that not only 
has she made original contributions but that they have been of major significance in the field. For 
example, a petitioner may show that the contributions have been widely implemented throughout the 
field, have remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major 
significance in the field. Here, we will address the Petitioner's arguments on appeal and determine 
whether she has shown original contributions of major significance in the ~eld consistent with this 
regulatory criterion. 
The Petitioner contends that the Director "indicated concern that some of the recommenders who cited 
[her] work have received more citations than [her]." 1 Moreover, the Petitioner a~gues that "it is 
. immaterial if other top experts in the iield have garnered more citations than [her]; what is relevant is · 
whether her citations place her within the top 15-20% of the field." 2 In general, the comparison of the 
1 For instance, the Director compared the Petitioner's citations (996 total citations and 223, 207, and 122 for her highest 
three cited articles) to (30,683 total citations that includes individual papers receiving 2,021, I, 130, 
744, and 742 citations). · 
2 The Petitioner references minutes from an American Immigration Lawyers Associati~n teleconference with the NSC on 
November 3-4, 20 I 0. According to the minutes of the meeting, NSC indicated that it "does not look for proof the person 
is at the top 1% of the field, but rather officers are trained to look for the top 15% or 20o/~ of the field.'' Unpublished 
agency decisions and legal opinions are not binding, even when they are published in private publications or widely 
circulated. R.l. Inv. Ltd. Partners v. INS, 86 F. Supp. 2d 1014, 1022 (D. Haw. 2000), aff'd, 273 F.3d 874 (9th Cir. 2001). 
3 
Matter of Q-L-
Petitioner's cumulative citations to others in the field, as well as her overall percentile ranking, is often 
more·~ppropriate in determining whether the record shows sustained national or international acclaim 
and demonstrates that she is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor in a 
final merits determination if the Direc~or determined he met at least three of the regulatory criteria. See 
Kazarian 596 F.3d at 1 t' 15. Howev~r, the comparison of citations to a particular scientific article may 
be relevant for this criterion in order to establish the overall field's general view of a contribution of 
major significance. 3 
Again, this criterion requires the Petitioner to establish that she· has made original contrib_utions of 
major significance in the field. Thus, the burden is on the Petitioner to identify her original 
contributions and explain-why they are of major significance to the field. As indicated, the Petitioner 
submitted her citation history from Google Scholar reflecting that her highest cited article (published 
in Cell) received 223 citations, as well as her second highest article (published in Nature Cell Biology) 
garnered 207 citations. Here, the Petitioner did not articulate the significance or relevance of these 
numbers. Although her citations are indicative that her research has received some attention from the 
field, the Petitioner did not dern.on~trate that her citation numbers to her individual articles represent 
majorly significant contributions to the field.4 Generally, citations can serve as an indication that-the 
field has taken interest in a petitioner's work. However, the Petitioner has not sufficiently identified 
the specific contributions she has made through her written work, nor has she shown that her citations 
for any of her published articles are commensurate with contributions of major significance. 
In addition, the Petitioner submits non-precedent decisions and argues that we have granted approval 
of extraordinary ability petitions where a petitioner has only provided "dozens of independent cites." 
These decisions were not published as precedents and therefore do not bind USCIS officers in future 
adjudications. 8 C.F.R. 103:3(c). Non-precedent decisions apply existing law and policy ·to the 
specific facts of the individual case, and may be distinguishable based on the evidenc~ in the record 
of proceedings, the issues considered, ari.d applicable law and policy. Here, the Petitioner did not show 
that the specific facts and circumstances of those cases are strikingly similar to those of the present 
case. 
Further, the Petitioner provides data from Clarivate Analytics regarding baseline citation rates and 
percentiles by year of publication for various research fields, including molecul~r biology and 
' 
Although not an issue under the evidentiary analysis, we note that that-the Petitioner has not demonstrated how her claim 
of citations placing her within the top 15-20% establishes that she is among that small percentage at the very top of the 
field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(2). · 
3 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005. i', Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 Petitions; 
Re~isions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADI 1-/4 8-9 (Dec. 22, _2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html; see also Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 (upholding 
a finding that a ballroom dancer had not met this criterion because she did not corroborate her impact in the field as a 
whole). , 
• 4 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9 (providing an example that peer-reviewed artides in 
scholarly journals that have provoked widespread commentary or received notice from others working in the field, or 
entries (particl!larly a goodlr number) in a cit!ltion index which cite the individual's work as authoritative in the field, may 
be probative ofthe significance of the person's contributions to the field of endeavor). 
4 
.
Matter of Q-L-
genetics. Moreover, the Petitioner asserts that her "papers place her in the top J %-20%" by year of 
publication. The comparative ranking to baseline or average citation rates, however, does not 
automatically establish majorly significant contributions to the field. 5 Once again, the issue for this 
criterion is whether the Petitioner has made original contributions of major significance in the field 
rather than where her citation rates rank among others in her field. Here, a more appropriate analysis, 
for example, would be to compare the Petitioner's citations to other similarly , highly cited articles that 
the field views as having been of major significance, as well as factoring in other corroborating 
evidence. Publications and presentations are not sufficient urider 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent 
evidence that they were of "major significance." See Kazarian v. USCIS. 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th 
Cir. 2009), aff"d in part, 596 F .3d 1115. The Petitioner has not demonstrated, as she asserts, that every 
published article that has been cited in the top I% - 20% resulted in an original contribution of major 
significance in the field. 
Moreover, the Petitioner contends that she "submitted numerous examples ofresearcher's citations of 
[her] publications" and "[t]his is consistent with [her] findings being of inajor significance." A review 
of the sample articles, though, does not show the significance of the Petitioner's research to the overall 
field beyond the authors who cited to her work. For instance, the Petitioner provided a partial article 
· entitled, 
· (Nature Genetics), in which the authors cited to her 2011 article 
published in Developmental Cell.6 However, the article does not distinguish or highlight the 
Petitioner's written work from the other cited papers 9r otherwise show that her article is viewed as 
being significantly important in the greater field. In the case here, the Petitioner has not ·shown that 
her published articles through citations rise. to a level of "major significance" consistent with this 
regulatory criterion . 
In addition, the Petitioner maintains that scientific journals reported on her research. While the record 
contains screenshots from publications, such as Cell, Nature China, Cell Research, and f1000.com 7, 
describing the Petitioner's recent research and findings, they do, not show that her work has been 
considered by the field to be of major significance. In fact, the screenshots speculate on the potential 
impact it may have at some point in the future. For example, Nature China claimed that "[t]he findings 
... will provide a useful model for the study of autophagy in a wide variety of organisms." Moreover, 
f 1000.com indicated t~at "[t]he finding that is a -specific factor is key for future studies 
in vitro and in vivo aimed at specifically assessing the physiological roles of but possibly also 
· that of other pathways where is associated with endosomal compartments." Here, the significant 
nature of her research has yet to be determined or measured. Further, the s~aring or reporting of recent 
5 For instance, according to the date from Clarivate Analytics, molecular biology and genetic papers published in 2017 
receiving only four citations and in 2018 receiving only one citation are in the top 10%. The Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that papers with such citation counts have necessarily had a major, significant impact or influence in the 
field as evidenced by being among the top 10% of most highly cited artic.les according to year of publication. 
6 Although we discuss a sample article, we have reviewed and considered each one. · 
7 Fl 000.com advertises that it "identifies and recommends irnpo1tant articles in biology and medical research publications," 
but it does not claim or show how those articles have.been of major significance in the field. 
5 
.
Matter of Q-L- · 
studies, findings, or research in-and-of-itself is not evidence of a contribution of major significance in 
the field without showing how it has already greatly impacted or influenced the overall field. 
Finally, the Petitioner argues that"[ e ]xperts worldwide have testified to the major significance of [her] 
original achievements and their importance to her field internationally'' and specifically references 
letters from professor at the and 
professor at the Medical School. 8 While the letters praise the Petitioner 
for her original research,. they do not demonstrate their major significance to the field. The letters 
recount the Petitioner's research and findings, mention their publications in journals, and indicate the 
citation of her work in their own papers. Although they detail the novelty of the Petitioner7s research, 
they do not show why it has been considered of such importance and how itsimpact on the field rises 
to the level required by this criterion. The ~etitioner's letters do not contain specific, detailed 
information explaining the unusual influence or high impact her research has had on the overall field. 
Letters that specifically articulate how a petitioner's contributions are of major significance to the field 
and its impact on subsequent work add value. 9 On the other hand, letters that lack specifics and use 
hyperbolic language do not add value, and· are not considered to be probative evidence that may form 
the basis for meeting this criterion. 10 Moreover, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory 
statements. 1756, Inc. v. The U.S. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
For the reasons discussed above,·considered both individually and collectively, the Petitioner has not 
shown that she has made original contributions of major significance in the field. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria. As a result, we need not provide the type of final 
merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise that we 
have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it-does not support a finding that the 
Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top. USCIS has long held 
that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary 
, ability" standard . Matter of Price, 20 I&N o·ec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner 
has not shown that the significance of her work is indicative of the required sustained national or 
international acclaim or that it is consistent with a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as 
contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. ·19, 1990); see also section 203(b)(l)(A) 
8 Although the Petitioner m~ntions two recommendation letters in her brief, we have reviewed and considered the other 
letters in the record. 
9 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9. 
' 0 Id. at 9. See also Kazarian, 580 F.3d at I 036, affd in part 596 F.3d at 1115 (holding that letters that repeat the regulatory 
language but do not explain how an individual's contributions have already influenced the field are insufficient to establish 
original contributions of major significance in the field). 
6 
Matter of Q-L-
of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that t,he Petitioner has garnered 
national or international acclaim in the field, and she is one of the small percent~ge who has risen to 
the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b)(l )(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that she qualifies for classification as an 
individual of extraordinary ability. I , 
, 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of Q-L-, ID# 2224444 (AAO Mar. 4, 2019) 
\ 
I 
'"7