dismissed EB-1A Case: Biochemistry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 17401897 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JUN . 25, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner , a scientific researcher , seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S .C. § 1153(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 Petitioner had 
satisfied only two of the initial evidentiary criteria, of which he must meet at least three . 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act , 8 U.S .C. § 1361. Upon de nova 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 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 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 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). 
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. USCJS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a ostdoctoral scholar in the field of biochemist 
he studies.__ _________________________ __,. _ __. He received his 
bachelor of science jj biotechnology and his master of science in.__ __ ___,biotechnology from the 
University orl.__ _ __,_ Iran in 2008 and 2010, respective![' and his doctor of philosophy in! I 
I I developmental biology from the University of_ I in 2017. At 
the time of filing, the Petitioner was employed as a postdoctoral scholar at the University oft I I ] 1 Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that he has 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). 
In denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner fulfilled two of the initial 
evidentiary criteria, judging at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and scholarly articles at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). The Petitioner's documentary evidence indicates that he has peer-reviewed a 
manuscript for The Journal of Physical Chemistry. In addition, the record contains evidence that the 
Petitioner has authored scholarly articles published in journals including Developmental Cell, RNA, 
and FEES Letters. Accordingly, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner fulfilled the 
requirements of the judging and scholarly articles criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he also meets four additional criteria. 2 After reviewing all of the 
evidence in the record, we conclude that the Petitioner does not establish that he satisfies the 
requirements of at least three criteria. 
Documentation of the alien 's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields . 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
1 See the Petitioner's cuniculum vitae and Fonn 1-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status. 
2 We note that the Director determined that the Petitioner claimed, but did not establish , that he meets the criterion related 
to receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in her field. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i). On appeal, the Petitioner does not contest the Director 's finding that he does not meet this criterion or 
offer additional arguments . Therefore , we consider this issue to be abandoned . See Sepulveda v. US Att'y Gen., 401 F .3d 
1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2005); Hristov v. Roark , No. 09-CV-27312011 , 2011 WL 4711885 at *l , *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 
30, 2011) (the court found the plaintiffs claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO). 
2 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that his membership in the American Chemical Society (ACS) and 
his claimed membership in Iran's National Elites Foundation (INEF) meet the regulatory requirements 
of this criterion. 3 In order to satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner must show that membership in the 
association is based on being judged by recognized national or international experts as having 
outstanding achievements in the field for which classification is sought. 4 
As it relates to ACS, the Petitioner provided an email dated October 2019 from two representatives of 
ACS Publications, offering him "a complimentary year of membership to the [ACS]" for his 
contributions as "a new reviewer that has recently completed two or more reviews for an ACS 
Journal." The Petitioner also provided a copy of his undated ACS membership certificate, which states 
that the Petitioner is "a Member of the [ACS], entitled to all rights and privileges associated therewith 
as specified in the Constitution, By-Laws, and Regulations of the Society." The Director determined 
that the Petitioner did not submit documentary evidence demonstrating that outstanding achievements 
are required for membership in ACS, as judged by recognized national or international experts. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts as follows: 
I was invited to join the ACS for my outstanding contributions to scientific peer review 
as judged by independent journal editors .... This special complimentary membership 
is in contrast to regular membership of the ACS which requires membership fees and 
a set of minimum professional criteria. It is reasonable to expect that only a small 
percentage of scientists qualify for this distinct class of ACS affiliation; otherwise the 
regular membership criteria would be meaningless. 
The Petitioner's statement, however, is not accompanied by any supporting evidence regarding the 
ACS or its membership requirements, such as information from its website regarding membership and 
the application process, or its constitution or bylaws, which may contain information regarding the 
selection criteria and process for becoming a member, including, as the Petitioner asserts, at a "special 
complimentary membership" level. Regardless, the documentation submitted does not demonstrate 
how having "completed two or more reviews for an ACS Journal" constitutes outstanding 
achievements. Based on the above, the Petitioner did not establish that membership with ACS 
represents outstanding achievements and is judged by recognized national or international experts. 
The Petitioner also asserts that he meets this criterion based on his claimed membership in INEF. The 
record shows that in 2004 the Beneficiary received a silver medal in an international high school 
student competition, the I I The Petitioner also provided 
an award certificate from INEF, which states, in pertinent part: 
3 The Petitioner previously claimed that he also meets this criterion based on his membership in the New York Academy 
of Sciences and his appointment to the Tran Biology Olympiad National Steering Committee. On appeaL the Petitioner 
claims eligibility based on the associations mentioned above and does not address these entities. 
4 See 6 USCTS Policy Manual F.2(B)(2), Appendix: Extraordinary Ability Petitions - First Step of Reviewing Evidence, 
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-2 (providing an example of admission to membership in 
the National Academy of Sciences as a Foreign Associate that requires individuals to be nominated by an academy 
member, and membership is ultimately granted based upon recognition of the individual's distinguished achievements in 
original research). 
3 
In recognition of your success in achieving the Silver medal of the~------~ 
I I in the year [2004] ... the scientific prize of the National Elites 
Foundation of the first class is awarded to you for your education in the Bachelor's 
level. 
The evidence includes a Wikipedia entry regarding the INEF. We note that Wikipedia is an online 
open source collaborative encyclopedia that explicitly states it cannot guarantee the validity of its 
content. 5 The Petitioner also provided the INEF bylaws on "Designation as Elites and Top Talents," 
which state at Article 2, "Definitions of Elite and Top Talent," in pertinent part, as follows: 
"Elite" according to Article 4 of the Foundation's Statute refers to a prominent and 
competent person whose impact on the development and expansion of country's 
science, art, technology, culture, and administration is tangible, and whose intelligence, 
creativity, entrepreneurship, and intellectual genius in development and expansion of 
knowledge and innovation accelerates the growth and development of science and the 
upliftment of country's human society. 
In addition, the INEF bylaws at Article 4, "Criteria for Designation as Top Talents and Elites," indicate 
that "[i]ndividuals meeting one of the following criteria are recognized as top talent or elite .... As 
Elite, the winners of the first to third places at authentic I I with the 
approval of the Ministry of Education." First, we note that the INEF bylaws submitted do not 
specifically address the membership requirements of the INEF, and the record does not contain 
evidence establishing the Petitioner's membership in INEF at the time of filing the petition in August 
2020.6 Even assuming that designation as "Elite" confers membership in the INEF, the Petitioner has 
not established how winning "first to third places at authentic! • I' 
represents outstanding achievements in the field, or that membership with INEF is judged by 
recognized national or international exf erts. As indicated above, the bylaws reflect that designation 
as "Elite" based on top placements at I requires the approval of the Ministry of 
Education. The Petitioner did not provide farther evidence showing that they qualify as recognized 
national or international experts. 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any 
necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The record contains articles dated 2004 from en.mehrnews.com and Isna.ir which mention that the 
Petitioner received a silver medal, two other students received bronze medals, and Iran placed! I 
thel I An article dated 2008 from Isna.ir titled 'To Participate in thel I 
I I Iranian Students Left for India Today" indicates that the Petitioner was one of the 
5 See General Disclaimer, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_ disclaimer (last visited 
June 24, 2021); see also Badasa v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909 (8th Cir. 2008). 
6 The Petitioner must establish that all eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have been satisfied from the 
time of the filing and continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
4 
scientific advisors who accompanied the students and their supervisors to that competition. The 
Petitioner also provided an article dated 2014 fro~ I titled 1 I 
I O O , I that provides that the Petitioner was one of several 
graduate student advisors at the International Genetically Engineered Machine (iGEM) competition. 
Although the Petitioner's name is mentioned, the aforementioned articles are about the 2014 iGEM 
competition, and the 2004 and 20081 I and the performance of the Iranian team; they 
are not about the Petitioner. Articles that are not about the petitioner do not meet this regulatory 
criterion. See, e.g., Negro-Plwnpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at *1, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) 
(upholding a finding that articles about a show are not about the actor). 
Further, the record contains a 2010 press release from , the 
publishers of the Petitioner's 2010 boo_ .... ________ __. The article, published on lbna.ir, 
mentions the Petitioner as the book's author and states that the work's target audience is 
"undergraduate students in biological sciences" and "high school students, [especially] participants in 
the biology Olympiads." A book review dated 2011 from I f (indicating Book of the Month 
Science and Technology as its source) summarizes the content of each chapter of the Petitioner's book, 
praises its chapter questions, Persian-to-English glossary, and references for further reading, and notes 
several weaknesses, such as "generalities" and the omission of certain topics. However, book reviews 
of the Petitioner's book, without more, do not qualify as published material about the Petitioner and 
relating to his work as required for this criterion. Here, the Petitioner provided articles only about his 
work instead of articles about him relating to his work. 
In addition, the above-referenced articles from en.mehmews.com, Isna.ir, and Ibna.ir do not identify, 
as required, the author of the material, and the Petitioner did not submit evidence to establish that the 
online publications in which the articles appeared are a major trade publication or other major media. 
Similarly, although the Petitioner provided information about Book of the Month Science and 
Technology from Libl.uc.acir, indicating it is a "[m]onthly periodical specialized in book review and 
news," and the publication's "national distribution page" listing the location of several bookstores that 
distribute the publication, the Petitioner did not provide supporting evidence indicating that the print 
edition of this publication qualifies as major media. 7 
Finally, the Petitioner submitted several screenshots of a video from the I I show and an 
English translation of a transcript. The Petitioner claimed that the video reflected an interview of him 
broadcasted in 2004 on I I in Iran. However, as noted by the Director, the record lacks the 
original untranslated transcript corresponding to this item. It is the Petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for the benefit sought through submission of all required initial evidence. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(l). Regarding the submission of foreign language documents, the regulation provides that 
the Petitioner shall submit such documents accompanied by a full English language translation. See 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). It does not indicate that English language translations may be provided in lieu 
of foreign language documents. As the record does not include the foreign language document, we 
are unable confirm the authenticity of the English translation, and therefore cannot consider it as 
7 See 6 USCTS Policy Manual F.2(B)(2), Appendix: Extraordinary Ability Petitions - First Step of Reviewing Evidence, 
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-2 (indicating that evidence of published material in 
professional or major trade publications or in other major media publications should establish that the circulation ( on-line 
or in print) is high compared to other circulation statistics). 
5 
demonstrating published material about the Petitioner relating to his work. Moreover, the Petitioner 
did not establish that thel I show represents a major medium. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he satisfies this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient[fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major sign[ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The Petitioner maintains that he has made several original contributions of major significance in his 
field as evidenced by his published research, citation record, and letters from experts in the field. In 
order to meet this criterion, a petitioner must establish that not only has he made original contributions 
but that they have been of major significance in the field. 8 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. 
Although the Petitioner provided evidence reflecting the originality of his research through 
recommendation letters praising him for his contributions, 9 as discussed below, the authors do not 
provide specific examples of contributions that are indicative of major significance or support his 
claim that his original contributions "have been recognized as having had great significance." In 
general, the letters recount the Petitioner's research and findings, indicate their publications in 
journals, and point to the citation of his work by others. Although they reflect the novelty of the 
projects on which he worked, they do not show how his research and findings have been considered 
of such importance and how their impact on the field rises to the level required by this criterion. 
For instance,__ __ ~ ___ __, the Petitioner's Ph.D. advisor at provides that the Petitioner 
~ his laboratory in 2011 researching the process~----------------' D 
L__J rovides that in his thesis research, the Petitioner led his roup' s efforts in determining the 
and that the Petitioner's findings 
"led to new insights into how the L...----------------------------,1 
I I' The Petitioner also developed "a quantitative model for the~-----~---' 
I lbased on these and other findings in the field" that "explained apparent discrepancies 
between expected and observecl I I revealed by results of .__ _______ __. 
spectroscopy assays published by prominent experts in the field, and ... predicted outcomes that were 
indeed realized upon farther investigation o-'L-~--------'' He states that the Petitioner's 
thesis results were published in the Petitioner's 2019 RNA article and 2019 FEES Letters article, the 
latter of which was featured asl t by the journal, which "showcases articles of highest 
quality and of interest for a broad research community." 
I I also explains that the Petitioner reviou
1
ly stu
1
ied .__ ___________ _. 
I lw~_it_h~ _____ __._a_t===~T_h_e_P_e_t_it_io_n_e_r_'s_r_e_s_e_fil_c_h_1_·n_t_h_is_ar_e~a 
showed an early role for the .__ _________________________ __. 
8 See 6 USC1S Policy Manual F.2(B)(2), Appendix: Extraordinary Ability Petitions - First Step of Reviewing Evidence, 
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-2 (stating that although funded and published work may be 
"original," this fact alone is not sufficient to establish that the work is of major significance). 
9 Although we do not discuss every letter submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
6 
which controls He notes that the Petitioner '--------~ '--------------~ was the co-author on the resulting 2013 Developmental Cell article, which "has been cited by many 
experts in the field." Although! ~ reviews the areas of the Petitioner's previous work, he does 
not elaborate as to how, or to what extent the Petitioner's research has significantly impacted the field. 
Here,I Is letter does not discuss whether the Petitioner's findings have been implemented 
beyond informing the research of other scientists in the same field, and if so, the extent of their 
application. He asserts that the Petitioner's work "advanced the sco e of research in my group and 
has set the stage for new discoveries regarding the in the future." While he 
generally notes the potential application of the Beneficiary's research,.__ __ ~ does not explain how 
it has already significantly influenced or impacted their shared field. See Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. 
Supp. 3d 126, 134-135 (D.D.C. 2013) (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). 
Additional letters speculate on the potential influence and on the possibility of being majorly 
nificant at some point in the future. For exam le the Petitioner's su ervisor 
a indicates that the Petitioner studies th .--..__-..J."- __ _, ,-----'------.----------------------' 
'-------,r----........,level with the use of'~--=-----,--,--~ and employs a doubling-labeling strategy that 
marks~--~ with two fluorescent dyes simultaneously. He states that these technologies and 
strategies "will for the first time allow us to follow chan es in the conformation of thel I 
L_ _______________ ....,along th which would have a great impact on our 
detailed understanding of the·-----~~ process." .__ _______ __, who met the~ 
...:a=.:t...!1====1.::..s .,:;,la=b:::..:o::.:r-=a.:.:to::.:.r...1....:.a:.:t.1...-_---1....::s:.:.:ta=-=t=es::....:.:th:.:.:a:.:t--=t:.:.::h.::.e...::P...:e::.:.t1::.:.· t1:.::· o:.:.:n::.:;er' s research findings, that the L___J 
L_ __________ ....-----------,. __ __Jproduct, built upon his own earlier work 
on the interaction between and "o ened an exciting new chapter in our 
understanding of this crucial cellular rocess." a professor of biochemistry and 
biophysics at University of indicates that the Petitioner made his 
quantitative model for the available in the peer-reviewed database of molecular 
structures known as the.__ _____ ___. and that "research of the type done by [the Petitioner] can 
have direct and transformative effects on our understanding of molecular processes such as 
.__ ____ ~I' While the letters show promise in the Petitioner's work, they do not establish how his 
work already qualifies as a contribution of major significance in the field, rather than prospective, 
potential impacts . 
.__ ___ ___.lalso indicates that the Petitioner "made major contributions to instructor resources" for 
the 6th edition ofl k textbook,! I contributing "a library of 
well-crafted questions for every chapter of the book that instructors could use either during their 
classroom lessons or in exams, in order to encourage students to think more like scientists and less 
like passive listeners." There is no documentary evidence, however, showing that the Petitioner's 
question bank has notably influenced the field or otherwise equates to an original contribution of major 
significance in the field. 
Overall, the letters considered above primarily contain attestations of the novelty and utility of the 
Petitioner's research studies without providing specific examples of contributions that rise to a level 
consistent with major significance in the Petitioner's field. Letters that specifically articulate how a 
petitioner's contributions are of major significance to the field and its impact on subsequent work add 
7 
value. 10 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. 11 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). The authors' assertions in the above-referenced letters do not explain how the Petitioner's 
research findings have been widely implemented or relied upon by others in the field or establish that 
the Petitioner's work has had a demonstrable impact on the field as a whole commensurate with a 
contribution of major significance . 
In addition to the expert opinion letters, the Petitioner also provides his publication and citation record 
from Google Scholar, statistical information regarding his number of publications and citations, and 
samples of other published articles that cite his work. The fact that the Petitioner has published articles 
that other researchers have referenced is not, by itself, indicative of a contribution of major 
significance . Publications are not sufficient under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that they 
were of "major significance ." We acknowledge, however, that articles that "have provoked 
widespread commentary or received notice from others working in the field, or entries (particularly a 
goodly number) in a citation index which cite [a petitioner's] work as authoritative in the field, may 
be probative of the significance of [his] contributions to the field of endeavor." 12 
Regarding his citations, the Petitioner initially provided evidence from Google Scholar reflecting 147 
cumulative citations . Specifically, the record shows that his three highest cited articles received 141 
(Developmental Cell), 5 (RNA), and 1 (FEES Letters), citations, respectively. 13 On appeal, the 
Petitioner claims, regarding his three highest-cited articles, that "[ w ]ith an average of 49 citations per 
paper in less than 10 years, my works have had over twice as many citations as average paper in my 
field." The Petitioner 's evidence in support of this claim includes a printout published on 
Timeshighereducation .com of data from Incites Essential Science Indicators by Thomson Reuters, 
showing a table of"Citation Averages" for papers published by field for 2000-2010 . We note that the 
Petitioner has not established the relevance of this data to the documented citations of his articles 
published in 2013 and 2019. 14 Notwithstanding , the line for "Biochemistry " indicated that the 
documented citations of the Petitioner 's highest cited article, cited 141 times, does exceed the 17 .25 
average citations for "all years" in that field. 15 
Comparative rankings to baseline or average citation rates do not automatically establish that a given 
petitioner has made a contribution of major significance in the field. Highly-cited publications alone 
10 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(2), Appendix: Extraordinary Ability Petitions - First Step of Reviewing Evidence, 
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manu al/volume-6-part-f-chapter-2 . 
II Id. 
12 Id. 
13 The Petitioner 's remaining article garnered no citations. 
14 The Petitioner further submits a paper published in 2005 in the journal Scientometrics which suggests "normalization of 
total number of citations with respect to the number of citations in mathematics is suggested as a tool for comparing 
scientific impact expressed by the number of citations in different fields of science," and argues, based on those metrics, 
that "[t]he 147 citations to my paper would thus correspond to over a thousand citations in clinical research." However , 
this evidence does not establish that metrics that may be suitable for comparing scientific impact expressed by the number 
of citations in different fields of science are indicators that a researcher has made contributions of major significance to 
his or her field. 
15 We note that the documented citations of the Petitioner 's second and third highest cited articles, cited 5 and 1 times, 
respectively , do not exceed that average. 
8 
are not sufficient under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that they were of "major 
significance," as a citation ranking does not provide sufficient context to determine the impact or 
importance of a given researcher's work in the field. That context must be provided by other evidence 
in the record. The Petitioner has not demonstrated, as he asserts, that any of the articles he 
characterizes as highly cited resulted in an original contribution of major significance in the field. 
While the Petitioner submitted corroborating evidence in the form of expert opinion letters, that 
evidence, for the reasons already discussed, is not sufficient to establish that any of the Petitioner's 
research findings have remarkably impacted or influenced his field. 
In addition, the Petitioner submitted examples of citations to his work by other researchers. A review 
of those articles, though, does not show the significance of the Petitioner's research or demonstrate 
how it has widely impacted the field. The Petitioner provided a copy of an article entitled, I I I I (Nature), in which the authors cited to his 
2013 Developmental Cell article, his highest cited publication at the time of filing according to 
1
Googlel 
Scholar. 16 The authors cited his article, and one other, as a source for the statements that 
I I I I and 'I _ I However, the 
article does not distinguish or highlight the Petitioner's written work from the 33 other cited papers. 
In the case here, the Petitioner has not shown that his published articles through citations rise to a level 
of "major significance" consistent with this regulatory criterion. Considered together, the evidence 
consisting of the citations to the Petitioner's published findings, the citation statistics, and the reference 
letters from his colleagues and other experts, establishes that the Petitioner has been productive, and 
that his published data and findings have been relied upon by others in their own research. It does not 
demonstrate that the Petitioner has made an original contribution of major significance in his field. 
Further, the Petitioner has not established, as asserted, that publication of his articles in highly ranked 
journals, as well as presentations at reputable conferences, establish that the field considers his 
research to be an original contribution of major significance. A publication that bears a high ranking 
or impact factor is reflective of the publication's overall citation rate. It does not show an author's 
influence or the impact of research on the field or that every article published in a highly ranked journal 
automatically indicates a contribution of major significance. Publications and presentations are not 
sufficient under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that they were of "major significance." See 
Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d at 1036, aff'd in part, 596 F.3d at 1115. Here, the Petitioner has not 
established that publication in a popular or highly ranked journal alone demonstrates a contribution of 
major significance in the field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner also maintains that his 2010 textbook, satisfies the '---------.--~--, 
regulatory requirements of this criterion. The record contains documentation from that the 
Petitioner's textbook, a 
'has sold over 8000 copies in Iran since its publication in 2010, 
~m_a_kl __ n_g_i_t-th_e_b_e_s-t--s-el-li_n_g_a_c-ad_e_m_1_·c~book in biology published byl I The Petitioner asserts that 
"[g]iven its sales record, it has already been implemented and used by a significant number of other 
scientists in Iran." Although the sales information for the Petitioner's textbook indicates it was a best-
16 Although we discuss a representative sample article, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
9 
seller for its publisher, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his textbook's level of sales and 
distribution indicate an original scientific contribution of major significance in the field. For instance, 
the documentation submitted does not show the number of scientists who have utilized the Petitioner's 
textbook as instructional material or that the textbook has affected the biological sciences at a level 
indicative of a contribution of major significance in the field. 
Further, the Petitioner claims on appeal that thel !questions that he authored, "used 
in at least 14 nationally-administered I exams ... attended by hundreds of thousands 
of students" and "republished verbatim in at least 7 separate books ... in whic~ I 
were analyzed in detail" demonstrates that work "clearly had a major significance in Iran." The 
Petitioner provided an uncertified English translation of a screenshot of book covers. The Petitioner 
claimed that the books contain some of his I I questions and their suggested answers. 
However, the Petitioner did not provide content from those books showing they contain :uestions and 
answers authored by him. Regardless, while the record indicates the Petitioner's! _ I 
questions may have had an influence on several student~------~ and the authors analyzing 
them, it does not establish the materials' significance to the greater field of biology. 
For the reasons discussed above, considered both individually and collectively, the Petitioner has not 
shown that he has made original contributions of major significance in the field. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
The Petitioner contends that he has performed in a leading or critical role for the~-~-----~ 
Das executive director of its 2006 two-mont~ I summer school. 17 For a leading 
role, the evidence must establish that a petitioner is or was a leader. A title, with appropriate matching 
duties, can help to establish if a role is or was, in fact, leading. 18 Regarding a critical role, the evidence 
must demonstrate that a petitioner has contributed in a way that is of significant importance to the 
outcome of the organization or establishment's activities. It is not the title of a petitioner's role, but 
rather the performance in the role that determines whether the role is or was critical. 19 For the reasons 
outlined below, we find that the Petitioner has not submitted evidence sufficient to demonstrate that 
he meets the requirements of this criterion. 
Within his initial submission, the Petitioner provided several appointment letters from thec=J that 
show that while he was an under raduate and graduate student he worked as a teacher and grader 
during s two-month summer school, includin as an instructor to teach the 
courses ' for the 2006 summer 
school. The Petitioner also submitted a letter from a professor of 
biochemistry and chairman of Iran's.__ ______ ___, steering committee, who provides that the 
Petitioner took on the "crucial" role of executive director of the c=]s two-month 2006 I I 
17 The Petitioner previously claimed that he also meets this criterion based on roles as a member of the I I I steering committee and as an instructor in itsl 
0
, .. , I summer school between 2005~a_n_d_2_0_1_0 __ -0-n~ 
appeal, the Petitioner claims eligibility based on the role mentioned above and does not address these roles. 
18 See 6 USC1S Policy Manual F.2(B)(2), Appendix: Extraordinary Ability Petitions - First Step of Reviewing Evidence, 
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-2. 
19 Id. 
10 
~--~I summer school, in which he "led the planning and implementation of the intensive two­
month-long summer training curriculum," including "curriculum design, comprehensive classroom 
and laboratory training, and extensive examinations." The Petitioner's initial submission also included 
a letter dated 2010 from! I director of thee=] in which he confirms that between 2005 
and 2010 the Petitioner's work included the positions oflecturer and teacher of molecular genetics, 
cell biology, and biochemistry, and instructor of biology laboratory. The letter indicates the Petitioner 
"was giving up his position to continue his education in Ph.D. degree" and stated that "our institution 
gratefully recognizes his expertise." 
Within his res onse to the Director's request for evidence (RFE the Petitioner submitted a second 
letter fro ~--.-,.........,~dated 2020, in which he provides ...... t=h=at~t=h=e~_~is~a ........ scientific and educational 
or anization esta 1s ed to administer and coordinate all in Iran. He ex lains that 
the s board of trustees consists of Iran's , Iran's ~-'---------------------'-""---~ President of the ---~-----~ L----------r----,_ ________ __J 
~-~ 
and eight university faculty members. He notes that exams are administered 
annually in all cities in the country, and the first round of.__ __ ~exams includes the subject areas 
of mathematics, computer science, physics, astronomy, chemistry, biology, stem cell science, and 
literature. He indicates thatc=J administers and prepares several additional rounds of exams and 
training. He explains thatO eventually nominates and prepares four students i~ subject area 
for participation inl I He provides that "the organization ofl_J is akin to an 
academic institution in higher education, employing a broad range of administrative and scientific 
personnel "in administering and coordinating national exams, training programs, and international 
representations." 
He claims that the Petitioner played a leading role as "the executive director of the~I ------~ 
summer school in 2006." He explains that, in response to complaints of participants in the 2004 and 
2005 biology summer school program, the Petitioner revised the program curriculum, bolstered the 
scientific rigor of the program, streamlined and extended the exam procedures, and introduced 
scientific team projects and extracurricular science excursions. He asserts that the success of the 2006 
I )summer school program "was a testament to the importance of [the Petitioner's] 
unique role at thel__Jduring a critical period." 
The letters fromi= I and[ I did not indicate where the Petitioner's role as 
executive directo~ s 20061 : I summer school fit within the overall hierarchy 
of~ so as to demonstrate that it was a "leadin
9" position within the club. Furthermore, while the 
Petitioner implemented changes toOs 2006 I I summer school program at a 
"critical period" for the organization, he has not provided evidence sufficient to show that his duties 
and responsibilities were critical for the Das a whole. The submitted documentation does not 
establish that the Petitioner's role was "leading" based on his title, placement in the organization, or his 
duties, nor does the Petitioner provide information sufficient to establish that the success~e 
Petitioner's 2006 summer school curriculum was of significant importance to the outcome ofl__J s 
activities to the extent that his role was deemed critical. For these reasons, the Petitioner has not 
established that he meets this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
11 
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 Dec. 953,954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner 
has not shown that the significance of his 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 section203(b)(l)(A) 
of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered 
national or international acclaim in the field, and he is one of the small percentage who has risen to 
the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act and 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
12