dismissed EB-1A Case: Biochemistry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 19633653 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 25, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a researcher in biochemistry, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary 
ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(1 )(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 record did not 
establish that the Petitioner had satisfied at least three of ten initial evidentiary criteria, as required . 
The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova 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 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 pet1t10ner can demonstrate 
international 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 criteria 
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 
The Petitioner earned a Ph.D. in biochemistry from the National Institute _________ 
I I in I India, in 2007. While the record does not provide a complete accounting of his 
employment history, it does show that he has spent several years conducting research in the United States 
as a J-1 nonimmigrant exchange visitor at various universities, most recently! I University in 
I I Missouri. His research has touched on various areas of medical interest, sometimes using 
animal models to study I 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or shown that 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 Petitioner claims to have satisfied five of these criteria, summarized below: 
• (i), Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards; 
• (iii), Published material about the individual in professional or major media; 
• (iv), Participation as a judge of the work of others; 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance; and 
• (vi), Authorship of scholarly articles. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner met two of the criteria, relating to judging and authorship 
of scholarly articles. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he also meets the other three claimed 
criteria. 
Upon review of the record, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has satisfied the criteria 
related to judging and scholarly articles. We will discuss the other claimed criteria below. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the.field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
2 
The Petitioner initially asserted that he satisfies this criterion throu h his recei t of a doctoral degree; 
qualification for a lectureship from India's Council of and a senior 
research fellowship from the Indian Council of ______ The Petitioner did not submit any 
evidence that these achievements constitute prizes or awards, rather than professional credentials. The 
Petitioner does not pursue these claims on appeal. 
Following the Director's issuance of a request for evidence (RFE , the Petitioner has claimed to satisfy 
this criterion through two certificates from the Publications Board indicating that 
he has "been approved as a subject of biographical record in for 2011-2012 
and 2016-2017. The certificates indicate that "inclusion ... is limited to individuals who possess 
professional integrity, demonstrate outstanding achievement in their respective fields and have made 
innumerable contributions to society as a whole." Apart from copies of the certificates themselves, the 
Petitioner has not submitted any evidence to establish that his I I inclusion is nationally or 
internationally recognized as a prize or award for excellence in his field. The certificates are not evidence 
of their own national or international recognition. Furthermore, the certificates do not identify the 
"outstanding achievement" or "innumerable contributions" that earned the Petitioner a place in the 
publication. Without objective, independent evidence to provide context, the certificates do not satisfy 
the regulatory requirements. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a printout of the Wikipedia entry for I Wikipedia 
articles lack indicia of reliability and warrant very limited probative weight in immigration proceedings. 
Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516 (BIA 2015); see also Bing Shun Liv. Holder, 400 Fed.Appx. 854, 
857-58 (5th Cir. 2010) (expressing disapproval of the reliance on Wikipedia and or similarly unreliable 
internet sources); Badasa v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909, 910-11 (8th Cir. 2008) (holding that an article from 
the online encyclopedia Wikipedia is not a reliable source of evidence in immigration proceedings). Even 
then, the article itself mostly focuses on the publisher's history, and does not indicate that inclusion in 
I b a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award. 
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 Petitioner asserts that he meets this criterion because one of his articles "got accepted as a book 
chapter," and others were cited in forums other than journal articles. Neither the book nor a promotional 
press release advertising the book constitutes qualifying published material about the Petitioner. 
Regarding the specified citations of his work that the Petitioner points to for this category, none of the 
articles is about the Petitioner, or appears to emphasize the Petitioner's work over the other cited works. 
One of the three named citing works is an e-book chapter, which the Petitioner submits with the 
handwritten annotation "look for page #37." Page 37 is the first page of the article's bibliography, listing 
17 articles, including one by the Petitioner. The article is aboutl I I I The second citing work, from a website about rare diseases in India, describes! I . I I an I disease found in a region of Southern India. The Petitioner co-wrote two of 
the seven articles cited as references. The third citation is a listing in a !database. The entry for a 
3 
called lists 53 articles, including one by the Petitioner, not as sources, but as examples of 
scholarly literature discussing the The submitted materials are not about the Petitioner. Rather, 
they include works by the Petitioner in bibliographies or lists of references. The Petitioner's evidence, 
therefore, does not meet the regulatory requirements for the criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient[fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The Petitioner asserts that he meets this criterion because he "published 14 research papers in peer 
reviewed journals and their total number of citations [is] 446." A printout from Google Scholar lists 16 
articles published between 2007 and 2014. Five of those articles have been cited between 45 and 124 
times each; eight others were cited between 4 and 1 7 times. At the time he submitted the printout, the 
Petitioner did not submit evidence to give context to the citation figures. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted some of the citing publications and other materials that 
refer, in various ways, to his publications. These materials show that the Petitioner has contributed useful 
knowledge to his field, but the major significance of those contributions is not self-evident. Describing 
contributions does not inherently establish their significance without further context. For example, many 
of the submitted materials indicate that, circa 2010-11, the Petitioner was on a research team at the 
University ______ that developed a lmodel with a 
which other researchers have used in subsequent research. The reliance on this I I model 
appears to underlie many of the citations of the Petitioner's work. But the record does not specify the 
Petitioner's role in developing the model. An associate professor atl I provided a letter on the 
Petitioner's behalf, praising the Petitioner's skills but providing little information about the specific nature 
of the Petitioner's contributions. In the letter, the professor refers to "a I model ... that I have 
created"; he gives no indication that the Petitioner was involved in the creation of the model, rather than 
other tasks ( such as subsequent experiments regarding 
The Petitioner also does not show that the mouse model developed atl I has been of greater 
importance to medical research than countless other! !models developed 
elsewhere. In short, the information about the model relates to some of the Petitioner's 
contributions, but does not specifically identify those contributions or inherently establish their major 
significance relative to the field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits web printouts from a website called Dimensions, which evaluates 
citation histories for given articles and indicates that some of his articles are "highly cited" or "extremely 
highly cited." This information provides some context for the citation figures submitted previously, but 
the record still lacks independent, objective evidence to explain how the Petitioner's contributions are of 
major significance such that his achievements have been recognized in his field of expertise. 
Beyond the citation information, the Petitioner has submitted letters from various mentors, describing the 
work that the Petitioner did in their laboratories, and expressing the opinion that the Petitioner is a highly 
skilled researcher. But these individuals do not explain how his contributions are of major significance 
in the field. We note that, while the Director discussed these letters in the context of the Petitioner's 
contributions, the Petitioner originally submitted them more generally as "recommendation letters." 
4 
While the Petitioner has amply documented his involvement in published medical research, the record 
does not establish how his contributions are of major significance to 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 lesser 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 conclusion 
that the Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
We note that, while the Director concluded that the Petitioner satisfies two of the regulatory criteria, 
neither of those criteria includes internal elements that indicate sustained national or international 
acclaim. The Petitioner has written scholarly articles, although the Google Scholar printout submitted 
with the petition does not show any articles published after 2014. The Petitioner has not explained or 
addressed this dropoff in research output despite his position as a researcher in biochemistry. He has 
also acted as a judge by peer-reviewing articles written by others, but both of these activities appear 
to be routine for researchers in the Petitioner's field. Additionally, as the Petitioner's individual 
contribution to the research cited has not been fully explained, had the case reached a final merits 
determination, these factors would have received greatly diminished weight. 
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. U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services 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 recognition of his work is 
indicative of the required sustained national or international acclaim or demonstrates 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 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 and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability. The appeal 
will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5