dismissed EB-1A Case: Bioinformatics

MATTER OF A-S-P-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. 1, 2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a postdoctoral scholar and bioinformatics fellow, 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. § 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 Acting Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for 
Alien Worker, concluding that although the Petitioner satisfied three of the regulatory criteria, he did 
not show sustained national or international acclaim and demonstrate that he is among the small 
percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional documentation and a brief asserting that he has 
sustained the required acclaim and has risen to the very top of his field. 
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 m the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
.
Matter of A-S-P-
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 two options for satisfying 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 material 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. USCJS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 20 I 0) 
( 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. USCJS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). This two-step analysis is consistent 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 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner was concurrently working as a bioinformatics fellow at the 
and a postdoctoral scholar at the 
He states that his research is aimed at "understanding how bacteria gain antibiotic 
resistance and why HIV is able to become latent and persist in patients." As the Petitioner has not 
indicated or established that he has received a major, internationally recognized award, he must 
satisfy at least three of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) to meet the initial evidentiary 
requirements. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
The Director found that the Petitioner met the judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles 
criteria under 8 C.F.R . § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), (v), and (vi), respectively. His documentary evidence 
indicates that he has peer reviewed manuscripts for several journals and authored articles that have 
1 The Petitioner was previously a graduate student and research assistant at 
he earned his Ph.D. in biomedical engineering. 
2 
from 2007 unti I 2013 when 
.Matter of A-S-P-
appeared in professional publications. 2 While the record therefore demonstrates the Petitioner's 
eligibility under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the evidence does not support the Director's 
determination that he has made original contributions of major significance in the field. Upon 
review, we conclude that the record does not support a finding that the Petitioner meets the 
requirements of at least three criteria. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific , scholarly. artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions o.f major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
As evidence under this criterion, the Petitioner submitted his publications, citation evidence for his 
published work, news releases, and letters of recommendation from colleagues. The Director found 
that this documentation demonstrated the Petitioner's original contributions of major significance in 
the field. For the reasons outlined below, we find that the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient 
documentary evidence showing that he meets the requirements of this criterion. Accordingly, the 
Director's determination on this issue will be withdrawn. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he has published research articles in "top ranked journals in his 
field" 3 and that his citation rate is "far greater than that of his peers and colleagues." With respect to 
the Petitioner's published work, the regulations contain a separate and distinct criterion concerning 
the authorship of scholarly articles in professional publications at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), a 
category that he has already satisfied. Publications and presentations are not sufficient evidence 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that they were of "major significance" in the field . 
Kazarian v. USCJS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1122. There 
is no presumption that every published article or conference presentation is a contribution of major 
significance in the field; rather, a petitioner must document the actual impact of his article or 
presentation. 
As one type of evidence of the impact of his work, the record includes a December 2017 Google 
Scholar citation report indicating that his 2012 article entitled . 
_ __ =..___~---------====--- ·· was "cited by 82." His 
next most cited articles, (2009) and 
(2015), were cited 67 and 57 times respectively. Regarding the Petitioner ' s 
remaining ten articles published from 2008 until 2017, the aforementioned Google Scholar report 
reflects that they have been cited 52, 43, 42, 35, 18, 12, 7, 1, I, and O times respectively. 
The Petitioner references an article written by entitled 
These authors state that "[ n ]umerous studies in 
2 For example, the Petitioner has reviewed manuscripts for PLOS Pathogens and coauthored articles in Proceedings of 
the National Academy of Sciences. 
3 That a publication bears a high ranking is reflective of its overall citation rate. Ranking alone, however, demonstrate the 
influence of any particular author within the publication or show that an author's research has had an impact within the field. 
,, 
.
Matter of A-S-P-
bibliometrics have shown that citation counts are time- and field-dependent. We can therefore 
expect a varying number of citations for publications in different fields and years." The Petitioner 
maintains that "using percentiles normali zed for field and year of publication" is a reliable method 
for comparing the scientific performance of individual research ers and assessing the relative impact 
of their papers. 
In support of his claim that his work has "been among the most cited in the field," the Petitioner's 
original filing included a 2016 Google Scholar citation report and a 2006-2016 Thomson Reuters 
"InCites Essential Science Indicators " (IESI) chart showing baselines and percentiles for various 
research fields , including "Biology and Biochemistry." According to the Petitioner , this chart 
reflects that "three of his papers placed in the top 10%" and "two others placed in the top 1 %, giving 
[him] five papers that objectively fall within a range of citations that bibliometrics research suggests 
should be considered highly cited or excellent." While the Petitioner selected the "Biolog y and 
Biochemistry " field as his basis for comparison , the IESI chart also includes citation information for 
the fields of "Immunology" and "Molecular Biology and Genetics ." As the Petitioner has published 
multiple articles in Molecular Systems Biology and described Cell as the number one ranked journal 
in "Molecular Biology"4, he has not shown that the field he selected presents a proper analysis of his 
citation record. 5 Regardless, the comparative ranking of a paper's citation rate does not 
automatically establish it as a majorly significant contribution to the field. Rather, the appropriate 
analysis is to determine whether a petitioner has shown that his findings, factoring in citations and 
other corroborating evidence , have been considered important at a level consistent with original 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
Generally, citations can confirm that the field has taken interest in a researcher's work. The 
Petitioner submitted various examples of articles that cited to his work; however they do not reflect 
that his work was singled out as particularly important. Rather , the Petitioner's findings were 
utilized as background information to the authors' papers. In this case, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that the citations to his work, considered both individually and collectively, are 
commensurate with contributions "of major significance in the field." 
The record also includes three news releases announcing the Petitioner 's published research findings 
in Molecular Systems Biology and Cell. Specifically, posted an article at Phys.org 
entitled (2009) ; provided an 
article to ScienceDaily entitled 
(2015); and European Molecular Biology Organization (EMBO)0 issued a press release to 
ScienceDaily entitled (2012). These three 
news releases reported on the Petitioner's newly published work and how his findings may affect the 
4 His article entitled was published in Cell in 2015. 
5 We note that the fields of " lmmunolog y" and " Molecular Biolog y and Genetics " have significantl y higher citation rates 
than those of the " Biology and Biochemistry " field chosen by the Petitioner. 
6 EMBO is the publisher of Molecular Systems Biology and was promoting the Petitioner's article, entitled 
which appeared in that organization's journal in 
2012. 
4 
.
Matter of A-S-P-
field at some point in the future, but they do not demonstrate that the impact of his work rises to a 
level of major significance in the field. 7 
As another form of evidence under this criterion , the Petitioner contends that experts in the field 
have offered testimony regarding his contributions of major significance. 8 For example, 
associate professor in the department of immunology and microbiology at 
discusses the Petitioner's "findings concerning HIV latency mechanisms." She states that 
his findings showed "that viral activity is shut down and controlled by the viral circuitry mediated by 
the viral protein Tat" and "that this control of viral activity was disconnected from the infected cell's 
state." further indicates that the Petitioner's discoveries were key to explaining why her 
recently patented anti-HIV "compound was effective when it targeted the viral circuitry directly."9 
Although the Petitioner's findings helped show the methods by which compound 
inhibited HIV, the evidence does not show that the impact of the Petitioner's work rises to the level 
of a contribution of major significance in the field. 
With respect to the Petitioner's research relating to bacterial cooperation through quorum sensing, 
associate professor of biological sciences at 
states: ''There had existed a longstanding hypothesis in the field that quorum sensing improves the 
efficiency of cooperative behavior by activating production of exoenzymes at high density, and [the 
Petitioner's] finding provided definitive proof of this hypothesis." While asserts that the 
Petitioner's work represented an example of "recent progress" in understanding the benefits of 
quorum sensing, the record does not demonstrate that the Petitioner 's findings have affected the field 
of synthetic biology in a substantial way or that his work otherwise constitutes a contribution of major 
significance in the field. 
an associate professor at the , explains that the Petitioner 
"used both his experimental data and cell growth and division simulations to prove that the noisy 
linear map creates transient oscillations in both cell size and constitutive gene expression." He 
further contends that this work "has broadened the scientific understandings associated with bacterial 
cell-size regulation." We recognize that research must add information to the pool of knowledge in 
some way in order to be accepted for publication, presentation, funding, or academic credit, but not 
every finding that broadens knowledge in a particular field is tantamount to a scientific contribution 
of major significance in that field. 
The record includes additional recommendation letters from the Petitioner's peers. Although these 
remaining letters praise his work, they do not demonstrate how his contributions are "of major 
7 The aforementioned news releases do not demonstrate the significance of his work beyond his research institutions or 
publisher . For example , and are the organization s where the Petitioner performed 
the research and EMBO is the organization that published his findings . 
8 We discuss only a sample of these letters, but have reviewed and considered each one. 
9 notes that prior to publication of the Petitioner's findings in Cell in 2015 , her research team had already 
discovered this compound's use against HIV "several years earlier." 
Matter of A-S-P-
significance in the field." Instead, the letters reference the importance of the Petitioner's works as 
indicated by their publication in professional journals. As discussed above, the Petitioner has not 
shown through his citation history or other evidence that his work, once published or presented, has 
been of major significance in the field. While the selection of the Petitioner's articles in professional 
journals or at conference proceedings verifies the originality of his work, it does not necessarily 
reflect that his research is considered of major significance. Without sufficient evidence 
demonstrating that his work constitutes original scientific contributions of major significance in the 
field, the Petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
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 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 
section 203(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 foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that he qualifies for classification as an 
individual of extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of A-S-P-, ID# 1263970 (AAO Nov. I, 2018) 
6