dismissed EB-1A Case: Biochemistry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 12, 2024 In Re: 33945460 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a biochemist, seeks to classify himself 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. 
§ 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record does not 
establish the Petitioner received a one-time achievement of a major, internationally recognized award. 
The Director further concluded that the record does not satisfy, in the alternative, at least three of the 
10 initial evidentiary criteria. The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F .R. § 103 .3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter afChawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter a/Christa'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) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability if: 
(i) the [ noncitizen] 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 [noncitizen] seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the [noncitizen]'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 their 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 
they must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the 10 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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
As noted above, the Director concluded the record does not establish the Petitioner received a one­
time achievement of a major, internationally recognized award. The Director further determined that 
the record does not satisfy, in the alternative, at least three of the 10 initial evidentiary criteria listed 
at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Specifically, the Director concluded that the record satisfies the 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), but that it does not satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v). The Director indicated that the Petitioner did not submit evidence to address the 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(iii), (vii)-(x). On appeal, the Petitioner reasserts that the record 
satisfies the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), in addition to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi). The Petitioner does not assert on appeal that the record satisfies the criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(iii), (vii)-(x), thereby waiving these criteria. See, e.g., Matter ofM-A-S-, 
24 I&N Dec. 762, 767 n.2 (BIA 2009) (citing Greenlaw v. US., 554 U.S. 237 (2008) (upholding the 
party presentation rnle)). The Petitioner does not overcome the Director's denial for the reasons 
discussed below. 
Evidence of the [individual's] original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or 
business-related contributions of major sign[ficance to the field. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The Director acknowledged that the record contains letters from professors of fields related to 
biochemistry. However, the Director observed that the record "lacks specifics regarding how the 
[Petitioner's] achievements as a researcher have affected significantly the field of biochemistry." For 
example, the Director noted that "the [P]etitioner has not submitted sufficient objective, documentary 
evidence demonstrating that [his] research has provoked widespread commentary or that it has 
received notice from others at a level indicative of its 'major significance' in the field." The Director 
also acknowledged that the Petitioner submitted information from Clarivate Analytics regarding the 
citation rate of the Petitioner's scholarly publications. However, the Director also noted that the 
Clarivate Analytics information: 
include a disclaimer stating "Citation frequency is highly skewed, with many 
infrequently cited papers and relatively few highly cited papers. Consequently, citation 
2 
rates should not be interpreted as representing the central tendency of the distribution. 
Keep in mind that citation rates are calculated from citation counts of papers that meet 
the criteria for inclusion in [ the Essential Science Indicators (ESI) database]. It is 
reasonable to expect that these rates are higher than those for all papers in the field, but 
a margin of difference is impossible to determine." 
Based on that disclaimer, the Director concluded that the Clarivate Analytics information "is not a 
reliable source; and therefore, cannot prove that the [P]etitioner's citations have been of major 
significance to the field." Relatedly, the Director noted that the copies of the Petitioner's Google 
Scholar citation record information the Petitioner submitted in response to the Director's request for 
evidence (RFE) cannot establish eligibility because it is dated after the date on which the Petitioner 
submitted the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers, citing Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N 
Dec. 45,49 (Reg'! Comm'r 1971). The Director further noted that, even if the record established the 
Petitioner's scholarly publications' citation rates, he "did not demonstrate that papers with such 
citation counts have necessarily had a major, significant impact or influence in the field." The Director 
also noted that the record establishes the Petitioner's research has received some media coverage and 
that he has received some research fonding; however, the Director concluded that the record does not 
establish how this media coverage and fonding indicates the Petitioner's research has made 
contributions of major significance to the field, as required by the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
On appeal, the Petitioner objects that the Director "failed to issue a clear finding regarding originality." 
The Petitioner also states that he has made original contributions of major significance to the field of 
biochemistry research because "three of his published papers have received enough citations to rank 
among the top 10% of the most-cited articles in Biology & Biochemistry in their respective years of 
publication, including one paper in the top 1 % of this category." The Petitioner asserts that opinion 
letters written by __________________ "media outlets discussing [the 
Petitioner's] research," and "details regarding funding received for [the Petitioner's] research" 
establish he has made original contributions of major significance to the field of biochemistry research. 
We first note that the Director did not err by failing "to issue a clear finding regarding originality" 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). The regulation requires the Petitioner to establish that he has made 
original contributions in the field, and that the original contributions are of major significance to the 
field. Here, the issue of whether the Petitioner's contributions were of major significance to the field 
of biochemistry research is dispositive for determining whether the record satisfies the criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). Thus, "a clear finding regarding originality" would not affect the outcome 
of the ultimate decision. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are 
not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate 
decision). We acknowledge that the record establishes the Petitioner authored or coauthored at least 
one published scholarly paper that constitutes an original scholarly contribution, as contemplated by 
the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
Turning to the Petitioner's citation record, at the time of filing the Petitioner submitted Google Scholar 
information regarding his scholarly articles' citation records, with information from Clarivate 
regarding citation trends among papers included in the ESI database. In response to the Director's 
RFE, the Petitioner submitted documents he described as "updated" citation information. However, 
3 
as the Director noted, information about citations dated after the petition filing date cannot establish 
eligibility because it presents a new set of material facts that did not exist at the time of filing, and we 
need not address this evidence further. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l); Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 
49; Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998). Together, the Google Scholar 
and Clarivate information submitted at the time of filing indicate that the Petitioner authored scholarly 
articles in the field of "Biology and Biochemistry" whose citations ranked in the top 1 % in 2016, and 
in the top l 0% in 2018 and 2021, among qualifying articles in the ESI database. 
As the Director noted, the Clarivate information disclaimer discredits its own reliability. More 
specifically, the citation percentiles to which the Petitioner compares his articles' citations is an overly 
broad category of all "Biology and Biochemistry" articles, including disparate specializations for 
which there may be routinely few or no citations, which the disclaimer describes as being unreflective 
of "the central tendency of the distribution." 1 Therefore, without more accurate information about the 
citation rates of scholarly articles among biochemistry researchers sufficiently similar to the 
Petitioner's research specialization during the relevant periods, the record does not establish how 
information in the record regarding his scholarly articles' citation rates may be representative of their 
significance to the field in which the Petitioner specializes. 
The Petitioner asserts on appeal that the number of citations three of his papers have received "are 
nowhere near the central tendency of the distribution. As such, the observation that ESI statistics do 
not represent the central tendency of the distribution is irrelevant." On the contrary, the Clarivate 
disclaimer concession that its data "should not be interpreted as representing the central tendency of 
the distribution" informs that the data also should not be interpreted as representing the actual 
percentiles of citations. As we noted, grouping the Petitioner's research in an overly broad category 
of all "Biology and Biochemistry" articles contributes to the Clarivate disclaimer's concession that 
"[c]itation frequency is highly skewed." The category of all "Biology and Biochemistry" articles 
includes those from disparate specializations for which there may be routinely few or no citations. By 
including disparate specializations for which there may be routinely few or no citations, the data 
creates the illusion that an article within a particular specialization that receives 20 citations is in the 
90th percentile of all "Biology and Biochemistry" articles, whereas it may be in, for example, the 50th 
percentile of articles in similar specializations, excluding the disparate specializations for which there 
may be routinely few or no citations. 
Next, although the opinion letters written by ___________________ 
address the "quality of [the Petitioner's] work and its benefits to the country," they do not establish 
how the Petitioner's original scholarly contributions have been of major significance to the field of 
biochemistry research. For example, Dr. notes that a research group in 2018 "turned to [the 
Petitioner's] novel techniques to identify the bottleneck in the cyanobacterial conversion of CO2 to 
(R)-3-hydroxybutyrate," and that another research group in 2020 "discussed the efficacy of [the 
Petitioner's] kinetic profiling method." However, Dr. I lletter does not explain how the two 
research groups' activities indicate that the Petitioner's original scholarly contributions have been of 
major significance to the field of biochemistry research,as Iopposed to some degree of significance to 
those two research groups. As another example, Dr. opinion letter asserts that he has "utilized 
1 We take administrative notice that a statistical central tendency expresses the midpoint of a group of numerical values, 
around which the statistical data can be grouped and contextualized, such as percentiles. 
4 
[the Petitioner's] findings in my own work." Dr.Oappears to have participated in the 2018 research 
group referenced in Dr. I opinion letter, and he generally informs that "other researchers have 
also benefitted from [the Petitioner's] techniques and the discoveries he has made." However, Dr. 
letter does not provide information regarding how the Petitioner's original scholarly 
contributions have been of major significance to the field of biochemistry research, beyond some 
unspecified number of research groups, including his own. Similarly, the opinion letters written by 
Dr. and Dr.I !discuss how they have used the Petitioner's research findings in their own 
research. 
Dr. I I half-page opinion letter references media coverage by "the International Channel
I I China Science Daily, and I I Observer from Daily," of a 2018 research 
project, noting that the Petitioner "is the first author of this work and performed most experiments and 
wrote the manuscript." However, Dr. does not elaborate on how the various media coverage 
informs how the Petitioner's original scholarly contributions may have been of major significance to 
the field of biochemistry research. Instead, Dr. asserts that a "core technology in this study is 
metabolic flux analysis" and that the Petitioner developed "a series of steady-state and dynamic 
metabolic flux analysis technologies for various biological systems," which "provide[ s] essential 
technical support for research in synthetic biology, microbiology, and biomedical fields." The letter 
closes by opining that the Petitioner "should be credited as having received media recognition for the 
research." 
In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner submitted copies of information he described as his 
"recognition by media outlets," including International Channell IChina Science Daily, and 
I I Daily, both written in a language other than English and containing certified English 
translations. The English translations of the media publications-including a series of still images 
from an apparent video with English subtitles from International Channell -address research 
conducted by Dr. I I also identified as Dr. I I apparently the same individual who 
wrote the half-page opinion letter addressed above. However, the English translations of the media 
publications neither reference the Petitioner nor inform how his original scholarly contributions may 
have been of major significance to the field of biochemistry research. Instead, they generally assert 
that the research may "help synthetic biologists design and engineer cyanobacteria to directly convert 
carbon dioxide into biofuels and chemicals" and that it may provide "new ideas for understanding and 
improving the nitrogen use efficiency of crops." Thus, even if the media coverage recognized the 
Petitioner-which it does not-the coverage does not establish how his original scholarly 
contributions may have been of major significance to the field of biochemistry research, beyond some 
indeterminate level of usefulness. 
Turning to the funding the Petitioner addresses on appeal, the record contains minimal information 
regarding the funding his various research projects have received. The "[e]vidence of [his] major 
funding sources" are brief, vague acknowledgments attached to his research publications. For 
example, one publication acknowledges that the research "was supported in part by the Ministry of 
Science and Technology of China ... and the National Natural Science Foundation of China." 
Another publication acknowledges that the research "was funded ... by the National Natural Science 
Foundation of China ... , the National Key R&D Program of China ... , and the Chinese Academy of 
Sciences." Another publication acknowledges that the research "was supported by the Strategic 
Priority Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences ... and Natural Science Foundation 
5 
of China." The Petitioner also submitted generalized information regarding the funding sources, 
which he describes on appeal as "major Chinese agencies." However, the record does not explain how 
receiving research funding in general may indicate that the research produced with that funding has 
major significance to any particular field. For example, the record does not establish that any of the 
funding sources only provide funding to research projects that will have major significance to any 
particular field, or to researchers whose prior research has had major significance to any particular 
field, which could establish that funding from such a source would categorically indicate the major 
significance of the project. Although the funding sources may be "major Chinese agencies," as the 
Petitioner asserts, without more, the significance of funding sources does not establish how the 
research those sources funded-in advance-subsequently resulted in contributions of major 
significance. The record does not otherwise establish how receipt of some unspecified level of 
funding-from any source-may indicate how any of the Petitioner's original scholarly contributions 
have been of major significance to the field of biochemistry research. 
For the reasons discussed above, and considered as a whole, the record does not establish that the 
Petitioner's original scholarly contributions have been of major significance to the field of 
biochemistry research, as contemplated by the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). Therefore, the 
record does not satisfy at least three of the 10 criteria at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established he received a one-time achievement or, in the alternative, evidence 
that meets at least three of the 10 criteria at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). As a result, we need not 
provide the type of final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. See INS 
v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25; see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. at 526 n.7. Nevertheless, we 
have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a conclusion that the 
Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
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 section 
203(b)(1 )(A) of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has 
garnered national or international acclaim in the field, and that he is one of the small percentage who 
has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b )(l)(A) of the Act; see also 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6