dismissed EB-1A Case: Biological Safety

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 16493401 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: May 12, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a research university, seeks to classify the Beneficiary, its campus biological safety 
officer, as an individual 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 although the record 
demonstrated that the Beneficiary meets the initial evidentiary requirements for this classification, it 
did not establish that she has achieved the required sustained national or international acclaim and 
placement among the small percentage at the very top of her field. The matter is now before us on 
appeal. 
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 )(1) 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 that a 
beneficiary's achievements in the field have been recognized in the field through a one-time 
achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If the petitioner does not submit this 
evidence, then it must provide sufficient qualifying documentation demonstrating that the beneficiaiy 
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 beneficiary 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) 
( 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);Rijalv. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner has employed the Beneficiary as its Campus Biological Safety Officer since May 2018 
and intends to continue to employ her in this position. The Beneficiary earned her doctorate in 
biological sciences ( environmental microbiology) in 2014 and has worked in the biological safety and 
biosecurity field since that time. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that the Beneficiary has received a major, 
internationally recognized award, it must demonstrate that she satisfies at least three of the ten 
alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Director determined that the 
Beneficiary met three of these evidentiary criteria, relating to judging the work of others in her field, 
authorship of scholarly articles in journals and conference proceedings, and serving in a leading or 
critical role for an organization with a distinguished reputation. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), (vi) 
and (viii). The Director concluded that the record did not sufficiently support the Petitioner's claim 
that the Beneficiary also satisfies the criterion related to original contributions of major significance 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
As the Director determined that the Beneficiary meets the initial evidence requirements, he reviewed 
the totality of the evidence in a final merits determination. He denied the petition after concluding 
that the Petitioner did not establish thatthe Beneficiary has achievedsustainednational or international 
acclaim and that her achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred in his determination that the Beneficiary does 
not meet the original contributions criterion at8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), did not give sufficient weight 
to expert opinion letters in the record, and did not appropriately weigh the evidence of the 
Beneficiary's achievements in the final merits analysis. 
2 
After reviewing the record, we agree with the Director's conclusion that the Beneficiary satisfied the 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), (vi), and (viii). We will therefore tum to the final merits 
determination below, where we will also consider the Petitioner's claims regarding the Beneficiary's 
original contributions in her field. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the Petitioner has submitted the requisite initial evidence, we will evaluate whether it has 
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, the Beneficiary's sustained national or 
international acclaim and that she is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, 
and that her achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. In a 
final merits detennination, we analyze a beneficiary's accomplishments and weigh the totality of the 
evidence to determine if their successes are sufficient to demonstrate that they have extraordinary 
ability in the field of endeavor. See section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); 
see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 1 Here, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary 
meets this standard. 
The record reflects that the Beneficiary completed a bachelor of science and master of science in 
biotechnology atl !university in 2004 and 2006, respectively. She subsequently attended 
I !University I I, where she completed her master of science in 
plant molecular genetics and biotechnology (2009), and her doctorate degree in biological sciences 
with a concentration in environmental microbiology (2014). In June 2018, shereceivedanrofessional 
certification as a Registered Biosafety Professional from the I I 
International I [ntemational). The Beneficiary's professional experience includes employment 
as a microbiology consultant and laboratory safety scientist at I I (2013-2016), as a 
Biological Safety Officer a~ I University (2016 to 2018), and as the Petitioner's Campus 
Biological Safety Officer since May 2018. 
As mentioned above, the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary meets the criteria for judging, 
scholarly articles, and leading or critical roles. It has also submitted evidence related to her 
contributions to the biosafety and biosecurity field. At issue is whether the record establishes that she 
is one of that small percentage who has risen to the very top of her field and that she has sustained 
national or international acclaim under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2)-(3). 
The record demonstrates that the Beneficiary has participated as a judge of the work of others in her 
field. An evaluation of the significance of her judging experience is appropriate to determine if such 
evidence is indicative of the extraordinary ability required for this highly restrictive classification. See 
~an, 596 F. 3d at 1121-22. The Director acknowledged the Beneficiary's service as a judge for 
l__Jinternational' s annual I !Publication A ward in 2019, but determined that the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate that her "participation in the widespread peer-review process, a routine 
1 See also USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form I-140 
Petitions; Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADI 1-14 4 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanua1/HTh1LJPolicyManua1.html (stating that USCIS officers should then evaluate the 
evidence together when considering the petition in its entirety to determine if the petitioner has established by a 
preponderance of the evidence the required high level of expertise of the immigrant classification). 
3 
process in the field relying on many scientists, exceeds that of other researchers or reflects sustained 
acclaim." The Director further observed that such acclaim "is more commonly associated with 
selection for service on editorial boards of prestigious journals or serving as general chair of 
professional scientific conferences." The Director concluded that serving as a judge on one occasion 
within one year of the filing of the petition did not reflect that the Beneficiary has "a career of 
acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 
1990). 
On appeal, the Petitioner objects to the Director's characterization of the Beneficiary as a "researcher," 
emphasizing that the record does not represent her as such. Therefore, the Petitioner argues that 
"USCIS's opinion as to what constitutes acclaim is misguided and their substitution of their opinion 
as to what constitutes acclaim" in the Beneficiary's field is "an abuse of discretion." With respect to 
the Beneficiary's paiiicipation as a judge forl IInternational'sl !Award, the 
Petitioner maintains that the Director "ignored the magnitude of this honor" and that the Beneficiary's 
service as a judge in this capacity "was on a level of sustained national or international acclaim." 
The evidence reflects that the,__ ______ ~Award is granted by I I International annually 
to the author(s) of an aiiicle published in the association's Applied Biosafety journal which "repmts a 
~cant contribution in scientific investigation and/or health and safety." A screenshot from the 
L__Jwebsite indicates that award nominations are made by a committee formed by two members of 
its awards committee and two members of its publications committee. The Petitioner also provided 
evidence that the Beneficiary, who was co-chair oQ !publications committee, was one of the 
committee members who volunteered to review and score articles as part of the award nominating sub­
committee. The evidence does not establish, however, how the Beneficiary's voluntary paiiicipation 
on the nominating committee for this publication award is "on a level of sustained national or 
international acclaim" or sufficiently corroborate the claimed "magnitude of this honor." 
The record also demonstrates that the Beneficiary rrnrticipated as a mentor in L ~ 
I I annuall • JProgram, which is operated byl,_ __ ____.I and 
sponsored by the U.S. Department of State. 2 The evidence indicates that the program pairs 
experienced biosafety professionals from developed countries with their counterparts in the 
developing nations to enhance networking opportunities, share best practices, and identify 
opportunities for improvement, collaboration, and professional develo ment. The record reflects that 
the Beneficiary mentored! lof the,...._ __ -,,------- ......... ------.--,---' 
I I The Petitioner explains that she "has been serving as a mentor and,-J·=u=d=e--'o;..;:f'-'-____ _____. work 
in his eff mis lo impTve the overall biosaf ety and biosecurity of the 
laboratories at ' 
research ~-----~ 
The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary's invitation to serve as a mentor in this prestigious 
international program "does in fact demonstrate sustained acclaim," emphasizing that several of the 
experts who provided letters in support of the petition mention that they "are aware of her role in this 
project." In addition, the Petitioner maintains that "only the most accomplished and reputable 
biosafety professionals are recruited to serve as mentors within the ...._ _________ __. 
2 We note that while the Petitionersubmittedevidencerelated to this program for consideration underthejudgingcriterion 
at 8 C.F .R. § 204 .5 (h )(3)(iv ), the Director did not address this evidence in the final merits determination. 
4 
Pro am." The Petitioner rovided a letter from a seruor .__ ___________ ___. 
member of the technical staff at 
I !Program.I I who._i_s_a-ls_o_t_h_e_c_h-a1-.r-o-f:~~~~~~,....I-n-te-m-at-io_n_a_l_E_n_g_a_g_em_e_n_t_C_o_m_m_it_te_e_., 
discusses the Beneficiary's work withl I and indicates that he invited her to join the I I 
I !Program based on her "reputation as a highly skilled biosafety and security pBof i n 1 
with a proven track record ofleadership and engagement, especially in her many roles within ' 
He also states that "all biosaf ety professionals selected from the United States for th 
Program have been outstanding members ofl I" and tha~ l"has areputationofcollaboratin 
with the be f h h biosafety and biosecurity personnel." L-----r-- 7 
Director of states that he has served as a mentor in the 
'----------------' Program and can confirm that I l"has a reputation of w._o_r_kin ___ g_. 
and collaborating with the best and brightest" in the field. 
The record, however, does not sufficiently document the criteria or process by which this peer 
mentorship program invites or selects its mentors or indicate whether or to what extent selection is 
based on a prospective mentor's national or international acclaim in the field. The evidence in the 
record supports a determination that participation as a mentor in the ~-----------~ program is regarded in the field as a significant professional achievement, but the record does not 
demonstrate that the Beneficiary's involvement in the 2019 program sets her apart from her peers to 
the extent that it reflects her placement among the small percentage of individuals at the very top of 
her field. Nor does the evidence establish that she garnered national or international acclaim because 
of her participation. Overall, the Petitioner has documented two instances of the Beneficiary's 
participation as a judge that took place during the year preceding the filing of this petition. It has not 
demonstrated how this recent experience supp01is a finding that she has a "career of acclaimed work 
in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723,59. 
With respect to the Beneficiary's authorship of scholarly articles, the Director observed that she had 
published "approximately 13 scholarly articles, only two of which had been cited, receiving 15 total 
citations." 3 The Director determined that, while the citations show that the field has noticed her w01k, 
the Petitioner did not establish that the citation rates are sufficient to demonstrate a level of interest 
commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim. The Director reached the same 
conclusion with respect to the Beneficiary's publication record, noting that the Petitioner did not 
provide, for example, evidence that would allow a comparison between her publication and citation 
record with those who are recognized for being at the top of the field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Beneficiary's professional field of biological safety and 
security "is not a purely academic, nor a purely scientific filed. It is a professional field that mandates 
the dissemination of original and groundbreaking information through hands-on conferences and 
workshops." The Petitioner emphasizes that most of the Beneficiary's peer-reviewed publications 
3 The record reflects that the Director obtained these figures from the Beneficiaty's Google Scholar citation histoty 
submitted in responseto a request for evidence in September 2020. While there are 13 titles listed, it does not appear that 
evety listed item was published in a peer-reviewed professional publication such as a j oumal or conference proceeding 
For example, three of the entries are for professional development courses for which the Beneficiaty served as a co­
instructor and three are for workshops orwebinars that do not have associated published proceedings. The Beneficiaiy's 
resume lists six publications in peer-reviewed conference proceedings between 2012 and 2018, one peer-reviewed journal 
article published in 2016, and two additionaljournalarticles that were "inpreparation"as of2020. 
5 
"appear in major conference proceedings for all of the conferences in which she has presented her 
extraordinary work in biological safety and biosecurity." In addition, the Petitioner maintains that the 
Beneficiary "is not in a field where citations are common," and submits that "citations are not an 
accurate means of determining whether [ the Beneficiary] has established a sufficient level of interest 
in the field commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim." While the Petitioner de­
emphasizes the importance of publications and citations in the biosafety field, the record reflects that 
there are in fact peer-reviewed journals and conferences in this field and does not sufficiently 
corroborate the Petitioner's claim that citations in this field are generally uncommon. 
Further, the Petitioner has not offered an alternate basis for comparison to demonstrate how the 
Beneficiary's record of scholarly publications and conference presentations sets her apart from other 
biosafety professionals and places her among the small percentage at the top of the field. The record 
reflects that, at the time of filing, she had six publications in peer-reviewed international conference 
proceedings, two of which were published after she completed he~nd started working in the 
biosafety field. 4 Specificall she resented at the 2017 and 20 I 8l__Jrnternational Conferences. 
The record reflects that she professional development course onc=J 
'at the 201 7 International Conference and co-instructed the pre-
conference course '~----------.------.------------------~' on 
three occasion, International Conferences at the 10th International 
Symposium fo,__ ________ ~ in 2018). A letter from I I who served as 
the Beneficiary's co-instructor for the latter course, emphasizes that 'I !pre-conference [courses] 
are peerreviewed by thd bre-conf erence committee,"notingthat "itis an extremely competitive 
process, where only a few courses are selected to be present[ ed] after a thorough peer review." 
While we do not doubt that the Beneficiary's active involvement ici !International conferences 
has garnered her recognition from conference attendees who participated in her workshops and 
sessions, the record does not establish how her publications in conference proceedings over the last 
three years, none of which have been cited by others, have earned her sustained national or 
international acclaim in the field or how her activities in these areas compare to other professionals in 
the field. Further, while the record indicates that there is a competitive peer review process associated 
with participation in these conferences, the evidence does not demonstrate that presentation 
opportunities and workshops are reserved only for those at the top of the biosafetyfield. The selection 
of the Beneficiary's papers and courses in consecutive years is noteworthy and reflective of the high 
quality of her work. We also note that several of the expert opinion letters comment on her talents as 
a public speaker and educator and her ability to effectively communicate with diverse audiences. 
However, the record does not establish how the Beneficiary's scholarly work, whether published or 
presented, has earned her sustained acclaim, or how it sets her apart from others and places her among 
that small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
ta !ks" ra tlier than as peer-reviewed conference proceeding publications. 
6 
The Director's decision reflects that he acknowledged both the Beneficiary's leading and critical role 
for the Petitioner, and the Petitioner's distinguished reputation. The Director concluded, however, 
that the record did not demonstrate that her employment in this role reflects or has resulted in the 
Beneficiary's widespread acclaim in the field. Further, the Director observed that the record did not 
demonstrate that the Beneficiary had held a leading or critical role for any other organizations or 
establishments with distinguished reputations. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the Director 
"ignored the evidence" when determining that the Beneficiary's role for the Petitioner is not 
"representative of sustained national or international acclaim or 'a career of acclaimed work in the 
field."' The Petitioner also argues that ''nothing in the regulations requires the beneficiary to show 
that she was in a leading or critical role with more than one distinguished organization, but in fact, she 
was." 
The Petitioner highlights the evidence in the record which establishes the critical nature of the 
Beneficiary's role for the petitioning university and the Petitioner's own distinguished reputation 
among research universities. This evidenc.l includes letters from several university officials, including 
I 11 I. I andl IThe Petitioner 
extensively quotes from these letters and maintains that "ample evidence has been provided in support 
of [the Beneficiary's] critical role." However, the Beneficiary's critical role for the Petitioner has been 
acknowledged and is not at issue. The letters referenced above discuss the Beneficiazy's 
responsibilities and accomplishments in great detail and confirm that she serves in a highly critical 
role for the petitioning university, that she chairs a working group of biosafety officers within the 
University! I system, and that she has been an invaluable technical and subject matter expert 
in the rural county where the Petitioner is located, coordinating both the university response and 1he 
local public health response to the coronavirus pandemic, paiiicularly while this petition was pending 
However, these letters do not explain how the Beneficiary had already receivedrecognition in the field 
based on her campus biosafety role and her leadership of campus and community pandemic response 
efforts atthe time the petition was filed in March 2020. 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 )(1). In its response to the Director's request for evidence 
(RFE), the Petitioner provided evidence that the Beneficial had 
1
een invited to speak on COVID-19 
biosaf ety related topics, including a webinar sponsored by International and a webinar hosted 
by the I O I in India, in August and September 2020. The 
Petitioner also indicated at the time of the RFE response that the Beneficiary had three new 
manuscripts for publication underway "all of which relate directly to the pressing COVID-19 
pandemic." However, the record does not establish that speaking engagements that occurred after 1he 
filing of the petition or papers that have not yet been published have contributed to her national or 
international acclaim in the field at the time of filing. 
The evidence provided at the time of filing did not demonstrate how the Beneficiary's performance in 
the Campus Bio safety Officer role resulted in her national or international recognition or otherwise 
drew significant attention from the greater field. The Petitioner emphasizes that "it goes without 
saying that due to the coronavirus/COVID-19 pandemic, the role of biological safety and biosecurity 
officers are being highlighted worldwide," but this general assertion does not speak to the 
Beneficiary's individual acclaim in the field when this petition was filed. 
7 
The Petitioner further argues that the Director failed to consider evidence establishing the 
Beneficia 's leadin role wit International which is described in the record as "the world's 
professional organization." Specifically, the 
.... P_e-t1-. t1-. o_n_e_r_e_m--h-a-si_z_e_s -th-at-th_e_B_e_n_e_f-ic_i_a_ry_w_a_s_a~founding member of I I Intemational's 
1.;-----------,. ____ ____J(which was later given committee status), serves as chair of its 
.==========='--=a::.:n;:.:d::....:::a.1c:.P.r;:,Pea~video series made b~ I International to celebrate 
I _ _ lin L__J 2019. The Petitioner particularly emphasizes that the 
Beneficiary's nomination to serve in the critical role of chairperson for the I 1 I 
I l "confirms that biosafety professionals around the world view [her] as a leader in this 
field." 5 
The Petitioner submitted a screen shot fro~ !International' s website Oorg/leadership) which 
indicates that the association's leadership includes a president, a council that serves as its governing 
body, several teams (each of which has its own leadership and is made up of several committees), and 
committees, which are each led by a chairperson/co-chair. The website's section on "Teams & 
Committees" states that "the individuals listed on this page are volunteers" in reference to the team 
and committee leaders. The record also includes a letter addressed to the Beneficiary froml I 
International~--------~in which he thanks her for being a chai1j--P-ll--11li;I.__ ___ ___._ 
I [ and notes that"[ v ]olunteers are the lifeblood of any association andl__Jinternational 
would not existing without the caring, dedicated, knowledgeable and highly professional volunteers 
from around the globe." 
Reference letters from bot~ I andl !International Ex~cutive Direptorl I 
Oaddress the Beneficiary's committee roles within the association.l._ ___ __.!states that "[h]errise 
to significant leadership roles withinl I International is evidence that [the Beneficiary] is truly 
regarded as an international expert in the areas of biosafety and biosecurity." I Jmentions 
that the Beneficiary was nominated for he~ I co-chair and chair roles and that this "speaks 
volumes about the regard her peers hold for her work." However, as noted above, other evidence 
indicates that committee positions, including chair or other leadership positions, are staffed by 
volunteers. Absent additional evidence or explanation regarding the nomination and approval process 
for committee chair positions, it is unclear to what extent serving in such a role for one of many of 
I !International' s committees is reflective of or results in one's national or international acclaim 
within the organization or within the broader field. 
Overall, the record reflects that the Beneficiary has been a very active member ofl I since joining 
the organization in 2014 and has heldl I positions since 2017. She 
has also raised her profile by having herl I presentations and/or worksho s accepted for 
inclusion in the organization's annual conferences in 201 7, 2018 and 2019. notes that as 
a result of these activities, she is "starting to be seen as a leader within,___ ..... ' but the evidence does 
not demonstrate that her activities within this professional association over the last few years have 
5 The Petitioner emphasizes that publication of the journal Applied Biosafety is one of the most important goals ofn 
International as a professional associati~that this makes the Petitioner's role on the...,I ------~-~ 
particularly critical. The screenshot fromL__Jinternational's leadership page indicates that there is a Journal Board 
responsible forpublication of Avvlied Bioscience, led byl I editors. The stated 
purpose ofth~ lis "to promote andfosterthel fbiosafotymedia." 
8 
resulted in sustained national or international acclaim in her field or placed her among the small 
percentage at the very top of the field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2)-(3). 
We have also considered evidence related to the Beneficiary's original contributions in her fielµhlcll, 
includes the above-referenced statements from the Petitioner's representatives and L___J 
International leadership, as well as other professional acquaintances and colleagues. The Petitioner 
identified the Beneficiary's contributions as (1) the development of "the first biosafety annual audit 
program inl I' and (2) the "selection of her original work for presentation at 
conferences, workshops, symposia and webinars in the field." 
In his letter,I lofl I provides details regardin the Beneficia 's 
mentorship relationship with I lof I las a participant in the..,._ __ --.-____ ,,... 
I Wrogram, noting that "with the expert guidance of [the Beneficiary ],,___ _ ____,is developing 
an annual lab audit program, which when piloted successfully at I lwould also be shared with 
oth~research labs. "I ~ also mentions in his letter that the Beneficiary's project plan 
foil__J was expected to serve as a model for other laboratories throughoutc=Jand would "be 
highly beneficial to the region as a whole in terms of responding to modem global pandemics." In 
response to the Director's request for evidence, the Petitio
1
er prorded more information about the 
project, explainingthatl lwas jointly established by the government and theb I 
of the National Institutes of Health as s first ~---------------~ Biosafety Level 3 laboratory." The Petitioner stated that the facility had never conducted an annual 
biosafety audit program prior to [the Beneficiary;s] inrrvention" and that no such annual biosafety 
audit had been conducted nor existed anywhere in up to that point." 
The Petitioner later submitted a letter fro ml I y,ho states that " [ the Beneficiary's] I I 
could not have come at a more critical time forl "~' at the time his letter was written was 
analyzing 90% of the samples for COVID-19 samples inl__j He emphasized thatl kvould not 
have the capacity to test and analyze such a large volume of samples if the Beneficiary had not 
provided her re latory and practical guidance in implementing the biosafety program at the 
laboratory . .._--~~~~-~~~~~.........,utions tol~--~f'stands to serve as a model for other 
laboratories in " This evidence establishes that the Beneficiazy's 
participation in the .-----;_ ________ __, program resulted in an important contribution to 
laboratory safety at ~-~that became particularly significant in l,igh,Lof the COVID-19 pandemic 
and is expected to influence laboratory safety practices throughoutl_Jin the future. However, the 
record does not establish how the implementation of the annual audit program afl I had resulted 
in the Beneficiary's individual acclaim or recognition outside the program itself when the petition was 
filed. 
The Petitioner has maintained that the Beneficiary's "highest contributions come in the form of widely 
broadcast, high impact (and often times international) presentations of her unparalleled knowledge 
and expertise in biological safety and biosecurity." The Petitioner particularly highlighted the 
selection criteria for the I I Annual Conference, noting that the selection of presentations and 
workshops is based on factors that include the relevance of the topic, scientific merit, the targeted 
audience, and, if applicable past evaluations of the speaker or course instructor. The record reflects 
that since 2017 the Beueficianrbad been au inviter: presenter at twol I conferences and at two 
I Symposia in Mexico and has co-instructed pre-
conference workshops at both conferences. She also gave a webinar presentation for a live stream 
9 
event sponsored b~ land fas invited to give a talk at 
the 4t~ !Workshop sponsored by th~.___ ____ __.joffice andl I 
University. The submitted recommendation letters discuss these activities, but do not establish how 
her individual presentations and workshops are deemed by the field to be contributions of major 
significance or how they, individually or collectively, reflect her sustained national or international 
acclaim or are otherwise indicative of a high level of recognition in her field. The record therefore is 
insufficient to support a finding that the Beneficiary's contributions have been recognized by the field 
in a manner consistent with being among "that small percentage who [has] risen to the very top of the 
field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
Finally, the record contains recommendation letters from the Beneficiary's colleagues and 
professional acquaintances that discuss her professional achievements and express the authors' 
opinions regarding her standing in their shared field. For instance,! I states that the 
Beneficiary "is truly a rising star in biological safety and biosecurity," who, in "in a very short period 
of time ... has established herself as an expert in these fields" and "has a bright future ahead of her as 
an internationally recognized expert." Further! lstates that the Beneficiary's "knowledge 
in the realm of biological safety, risk, security and management are undoubted! extraordin· and 
place her among a small group of experts o eratin at the ve to of the field." 
a supervisory microbiologist with the.__ __________________ __. Biorisk 
Management Unit, states that the Beneficiary is "a professional who possesses extraordinary 
knowledge and skill of the biosafety and biosecurity field" who has been "on a path to becoming a 
notable biosafety professional" since joining the profession in 2014.1 I states that "it 
is my professional opinion that [the Beneficiary] is an internationally recognized expert in this field 
and she is rapidly emerging as one of the leading scientists and educator in the field of Bio safety and 
Biosecurity in the United States." 
Here, while the letters (including those reviewed and not discussed here) praise the Beneficiary's 
expertise in her field, they do not provide sufficient information and explanation, nor does the record 
include sufficient corroborating evidence, to show that she is already viewed by her overall field, 
rather than by a solicited few, as being among that small percentage at the very top of the field of 
endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The record establishes that the Beneficiary is a successfuL 
committed professional who performs important work in the biosafety and biological security field. 
The evidence provides support forl Is assertion that the Beneficiary is "a rising star" who 
has gained notice in the field for her achievements over the past several years and is likely poised for 
national or international recognition in the future. 
However, the record as a whole does not establish the Beneficiary's eligibility for the benefit sought 
Here, the Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification for the Beneficiary, intended for 
individuals already at the top of their respective fields, rather than those progressing toward the top. 
Even major league level athletes do not automatically meet the statutory standards for classification 
as an individual of "extraordinary ability." Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 
1994). While the Petitioner need not establish that there is no one more accomplished to qualify for 
the classification sought, we find the record insufficient to demonstrate that the Beneficiary has 
sustained national or international acclaim and is among the small percentage at the top of her field. 
See section 203(b )(l)(A)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated the Beneficiary's eligibility as 
an individual of extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, wi1h 
each considered as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
11