dismissed EB-1A Case: Biology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 22643264 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : OCT . 25, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner , a researcher , seeks classification 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 Texas Service Center initially approved the petition. However, the Director 
subsequently revoked the approval, 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 )(1 )(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 endeav or." 8 C.F .R. § 204.5( h)(2). The implementing regu lation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi -part analysis . First, a petitioner can demonstrate recogn ition 
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). 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. 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) . 
With respect to revocations, section 205 of the Act, 8 U.S .C. § 1155, states, in pertinent part, that the 
Secretary of Homeland Security "may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, 
revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204." 
Regarding revocation on notice, the Board of Immigration Appeals has stated: 
In Matter of Estime, ... this Board stated that a notice of intention to revoke a visa 
petition is properly issued for "good and sufficient cause" where the evidence of record 
at the time the notice is issued, if unexplained and unrebutted, would warrant a denial 
of the visa petition based upon the petitioner's failure to meet his burden of proof. The 
decision to revoke will be sustained where the evidence of record at the time the 
decision is rendered, including any evidence or explanation submitted by the petitioner 
in rebuttal to the notice of intention to revoke, would warrant such denial. 
Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec . 582, 590 (BIA 1988) (citing Matter of Estime, 19 I&N Dec. 450 (BIA 
1987)) . 
By itself, the Director 's realization that a petition was incorrectly approved is good and sufficient 
cause for the revocation of the approval of an immigrant petition. Id. The approval of a visa petition 
vests no rights in the beneficiary of the petition, as approval of a visa petition is but a preliminary step 
in the visa application process. Id. at 589. A beneficiary is not, by mere approval of the petition, 
entitled to an immigrant visa. Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a researcher in the field of I I biology, focusing specifically in the area 
biology . Because he has not indicated or established that he has received a major, 
2 
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 revoking the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner fulfilled only two of the initial 
evidentiary criteria; specifically, judging at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and scholarly articles at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), and we agree with that determination. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he meets an additional criterion, discussed below. As the 
Petitioner claims no other criterion, beyond those discussed herein, we consider the remaining 
eligibility criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) to be waived. After reviewing all of the evidence in the 
record, we conclude that the record does not support a finding that the Petitioner satisfies the 
requirements of at least three criteria. 
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). 
In order to satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner must establish that not only 
have they made original contributions, but that the contributions have been of major significance in 
the field. 1 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. See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that he has made major contributions in the field of microbiology, 2 
noting that his research has "pushed researchers understanding" of the effects ofl I and 
on human health as well as the characteristics of various diseases and their 
effect on human health. The Petitioner contends that the publication of his research in reputable 
journals, along with his citation history and letters of recommendation, establishes that he meets this 
criterion. 3 
In his brief, the Petitioner claims that his publication in top journals demonstrates that experts in his 
field find his work to be majorly significant. Specifically, the Petitioner points to the publication of 
his articles in Journal of Nutrition, Acta Obstrecia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, Environmental 
Health Perspectives, Epigenetics, Journal of Developmental Origins of Health and Disease, 
Antioxidants and Redox Signaling, Emerging I11fectious Diseases, and Journal of I11fectious Diseases. 
However, the Petitioner has not established that publication of articles in highly ranked or popular 
journals inevitably demonstrates that the field considers the research and work to be an original 
1 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(2). https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual (finding that although funded and published 
work may be "original," this fact alone is not sufficient to establish that the work is of major significance). 
2 We note that on appeal, the Petitioner refers to his field as In supp01t of the petition, however, the Petitioner 
claimed to be a researcher in the field of biology. The Petitioner must resolve this discrepancy in the record 
with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
3 The Petitioner also opines that the Director erred in his decision by incorrectly requiring major contributions "to the field" 
rather than "in the field" because the regulations do not require a significant important contribution related to the entire 
field. However. we do not find support for the Petitioner's contention regarding the difference in meaning between these 
phrases and we note that USCIS policy advises adjudicators to determine "whether the person's original contributions are 
of major significance to the field." See 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2 appendix. We therefore conclude that the 
Director did not err in his decision. 
3 
contribution of major significance. Moreover, a publication that bears a high ranking or impact factor 
reflects 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. Here, for the reasons discussed below, the Petitioner has not 
established that publication in a popular or highly ranked journal alone demonstrates a contribution of 
major significance in the field. 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 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009), aff'd in part, 596 F.3d 1115. 
The Petitioner contends that his published articles had been cited 958 times at the time of filing. The 
Petitioner did not demonstrate how his cumulative number of citations represents contributions of 
major significance in the field. As this criterion requires the Petitioner to establish that he has made 
original contributions of major significance in the field, he bears the burden to identify his original 
contributions and explain why they are of major significance. Aggregate citation figures tend to reflect 
a petitioner's overall publication record rather than identifying which research the field considers to 
be majorly significant. 
We note the Petitioner's reference to our non-precedent decision concerning a case where citations to 
works co-authored by a petitioner were deemed sufficient to demonstrate original contributions of major 
significance. This decision was not published as a precedent and therefore does not bind U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) officers in future adjudications. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c). 
Non-precedent decisions apply existing law and policy to the specific facts of the individual case, and 
may be distinguishable based on the evidence in the record of proceedings, the issues considered, and 
applicable law and policy. Here, the Petitioner did not submit a copy of the referenced case, nor did it 
demonstrate that the facts of that case are analogous to the matter currently before us. 
The record also reflects that the Petitioner submitted evidence from Google Scholar reflecting that his 
three highest cited articles received 160 (Emerging Infectious Diseases), 135 (Journal of lnfectious 
Diseases), and 64 (Environmental Health Perspectives) citations, respectively. 4 Once again, this 
criterion requires the Petitioner to establish that he has made original contributions of major 
significance in the field. Generally, citations can serve as an indication that the field has taken interest 
in a petitioner's research or written work. However, the Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that the 
citations for any of his published articles are commensurate with contributions of major significance. 
The Petitioner did not articulate the significance or relevance of the citations to his articles. For 
example, he did not demonstrate that these citations are unusually high in his field or how they 
compare to other articles that the field views as having been majorly significant. Although his citations 
are indicative that his research has received some attention from the field, the Petitioner did not 
establish that his citation numbers to his individual articles represent majorly significant contributions 
in the field. 5 
4 The Petitioner did not specify how many citations, if any, for each of his individual articles contained self-citations. 
5 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(2) (providing an example that peer-reviewed articles in scholarly journals 
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 the individual's work as authoritative in the field, may be probative of the 
significance of the person's contributions to the field of endeavor). 
4 
In addition to the Google Scholar citation evidence, the record contains evidence relating to the 
"impact factors" of the journals that published the Petitioner's papers. That a publication bears a high 
ranking or impact factor is reflective of the publication's overall citation rate. It does not, however, 
demonstrate the influence of any particular author within the field or how an author's research has had 
an impact within the field. Although a journal's ranking and impact factor can provide an 
approximation of the prestige of the journal, the ranking does not demonstrate the major significance 
of every article published in that journal. The Petitioner must establish that the findings in his articles 
have affected the I I biology field at a level indicative of original contributions of major 
significance in the field. 
The Petitioner also argues that he submitted multiple articles that have been cited at a rate exceeding 
that at which papers published by otherl lbiology experts have been cited, and asserts that 
each article therefore constitutes an original scholarly contribution of major significance. In support 
of this assertion, the Petitioner submitted data about the rate of citation to his individual papers from 
several third-party sources. The first set of data the Petitioner refers to is the Altmetric Attention 
Score. The Petitioner submitted evidence regarding the attention score assigned by Altmetric to eight 
of his papers, indicating that five of these papers were "in the top 25% of all research outputs scored 
by Altmetrics," and the remaining three papers received good or above average attention scores. On 
review of this evidence, it appears that these scores are calculated based on online attention derived 
from social media and mainstream news media. Altmetric's website states as follows: 
Altmetrics are metrics and qualitative data that are complementary to traditional, 
citation-based metrics. They can include (but are not limited to) peer reviews on 
Faculty of 1000, citations on Wikipedia and in public policy documents, discussions 
on research biogs, mainstream media coverage, bookmarks on reference managers like 
Mendeley, and mentions on social networks such as Twitter. 
Sourced from the Web, altmetrics can tell you a lot about how often journal articles 
and other scholarly outputs like datasets are discussed and used around the world. 6 
According to its website, excerpts of which are submitted by the Petitioner on appeal, the attention 
scores reflected in the Altmetric data provided by the Petitioner are garnered by mentions in various 
social media platforms such as news articles, biogs, Wikipedia, and Twitter. On appeal, the Petitioner 
argues that the Director erroneously discounted the Altmetric attention scores because they were 
derived in part from Wikipedia sources. While we acknowledge the Petitioner's assertion that 
Wikipedia is not the sole source used for score compilation, it nevertheless is highlighted as a 
significant source of data. As mentioned in the Director's decision, there are no assurances about the 
reliability of the content from Wikipedia, an open, user-edited internet site. 7 See Lamilem Badasa v. 
Michael Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909 (8th Cir. 2008). 
6 See https://www.altmetric.com/about-altmetrics/what-are-altmetrics/ (last visited Oct. 25, 2022). 
7 Online content from Wikipedia is subject to the following general disclaimer, "WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE 
OF VALIDITY. Wikipedia is an online open-content collaborative encyclopedia; that is, a voluntary association of 
individuals and groups working to develop a common resource of human knowledge. The structure of the project allows 
anyone with an Internet connection to alter its content. Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been 
reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable infonnation. That is not 
5 
We further note that Altmetric's website states that "[i]t is important to bear in mind that metrics 
(including citation-based metrics) are merely indicators-they can point to interesting spikes in different 
types of attention, etc. but are not themselves evidence of such." 8 Moreover, "[t]here are a number of 
limitations to the use of altmetrics," "altmetrics are a complement to, not a replacement for, things like 
informed peer review and citation-based metrics," "[a]nyone with enough time on their hands can 
artificially inflate the altmetrics for their research," and "[u]ntil we know more, use and interpret 
altmetrics carefolly." 9 While the Petitioner asserts that the Altmetric data demonstrates that his articles 
constitute original contributions of major significance, he does not explain or demonstrate that even 
very high attention in social media and mainstream news media is indicative of the subject research 
being of major significance to other scientists conducting! I biology research. 
The Petitioner also submitted statistical analyses from Dimensions, indicating that some of his articles 
have received "more attention than normal," and others are "extremely highly cited," earning between 
8.16 and 24 times more citations than average. These figures can be misleading, because the range of 
citations is broad; the most-cited articles can receive hundreds or thousands of citations, while others 
are cited once or not at all. Above average is not necessarily synonymous with the top of the field. 
Although this information provides some context for the citation figures submitted, 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. 
Finally, the Petitioner claims that he presented testimonials attesting to his majorly significant 
contributions. In general, the letters recount the Petitioner's research and findings, indicate their 
publications in journals, and point to the citations of his work by others. Although they reflect the 
novelty of his work, they do not sufficiently articulate how his research and findings have been 
considered of such importance and how their im act on the field rises to the level of major significance 
required by this criterion. 1° For instance, commented on the Petitioner's research 
conducted at the which focused on the prevalence of different 
I I infections, development of I methods for easy identification for identification of 
different! I species, and immunity tol According tol I the Petitioner's 
work in this area contributed to the limitation of parasitic infection in the United States, and he notes 
that the Petitioner developed a I characterization ofl I an anerobic 
parasite." HoweverJ I did not describe how the Petitioner has significantly influenced the 
field. Similarly, whilel !concluded that the Petitioner's work on this project "helped define 
the scope of the prevalence of this pathogen, so a firm plan of action for addressing it could be 
developed," he did not supplement his letter with specific examples showing how the Petitioner 
impacted the field in a significant way. 
to say that you will not find valuable and accurate information in Wikipedia; much of the time you will. However, 
Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here. The content of any given article may recently 
have been changed, vandalized, or altered by someone whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in 
the relevant fields." (Emphasis in original). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer (last visited 
Oct. 25, 2022). 
8 See https://www.altmetric.com/about-altmetrics/what-are-altmetrics/ (last visited Oct. 25, 2022). 
9 See id. 
10 While we discuss a sampling ofletters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
6 
commented on the Petitioner's work pertaining to the effects of _____ 
__ exposure and itsl I effects on humans, noting that the Petitioner found that humans 
exposed tol I may be more likely to develop cancer. Although she states that his findings had 
been published in Environmental Health Perspectives and that she cited his findings in one of her 
articles,! I does not explain why she cited to this research or how it affected her research.□ 
I I also focused on the prestige of the journals in which the Petitioner's work has been published, 
but she did not explain how his research constitutes an original contribution of major significance to 
other researchers in the field. 
Similarly, stated that she is familiar with the Petitioner's work in the field of 
1 7 related toxicity and __ __.modification resulting from I exposure, and referenced 
the Petitioner's articles on these subjects that were published in the scientific journals Environmental 
Health Perspectives and Metallomics. However, she did not explain how the Petitioner's published 
findings affected her own research. In addition, in discussing the significance of these contributions, 
the letter refers to the prestige of the journals in which the Petitioner's work has been published. But 
we will not assume that all papers published in prestigious scientific journals have impact or influence 
on their respective fields, andl I does not explain how attention to the Petitioner's research 
in scientific journals reflects a significant contribution to the field of I biology. 
Furthermore, some of the letters speculate on the potential influence of the Petitioner's work and 
propose that he will have an impact at some undefined point in the future. For example, I 
I I commented on the Petitioner's research on deficiency and supplementation during 
pregnancy. According to I I the Petitioner's finding that extended I I in 
I I women who participated in his study led to improved! I and immune function in 
infants, and showed the benefits of exclusively I and its potential to lower health care 
costs inl I and other developing countries. She did not, however, elaborate and explain if 
the research has ever been applied in the field. 
Here, the Petitioner's letters do not contain specific, detailed information explaining the unusual 
influence or high impact his research or work has had on the overall field. Letters that specifically 
articulate how a petitioner's contributions are of major significance to the field and its impact on 
subsequent work add value. 11 On the other hand, 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. 12 USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory statements. 1756, Inc. v. 
The US. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
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. 
11 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(2). 
12 Id. See also Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036, aff'd in part, 596 F.3d at 1115 (holding that letters that repeat the regulatory 
language but do not explain how an individual's contributions have already influenced the field are insufficient to establish 
original contributions of major significance in the field). 
7 
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 sustained 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 reflects 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)(l)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). Although 
the Petitioner has reviewed manuscripts, conducted research, and authored scholarly articles, the 
record does not contain sufficient evidence establishing that he is among the upper echelon in his field. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
8