dismissed EB-1A Case: Biomedical Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 1, 2024 In Re: 31658305 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a biomedical engineer 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 denied the petition, concluding that although the Petitioner 
satisfied at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria, as required, 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. The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F .R. § 103 .3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence . 
Matter ofChawathe , 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc. , 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(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 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 sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a 
major, internationally recognized award) or qualifying 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). 
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 filed this petition in February 2023. He is presently engaged as a staff scientist 
specializing in biomedical research at a university located in Missouri and intends to continue pursuing 
his career there. In 2019, he obtained a Ph.D. in biochemical engineering from a university abroad. 
Because the Petitioner has not claimed or established that he has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, he must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory 
criteria C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Director determined that the Petitioner met three of those 
criteria: judging under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), scientific accomplishments of major significance 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), and scholarly articles under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). Before the 
Director and on appeal the Petitioner does not assert, nor does the record establish that he has met any 
other criteria. 
The Director denied the petition, concluding the record did not demonstrate he warranted favorable 
consideration in a final merits determination. As the Petitioner has submitted the requisite initial 
evidence, we will evaluate whether he has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, his 
sustained national or international acclaim and that he is one of the small percentage at the very top of 
the field of endeavor, and that his achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive 
documentation. In a final merits determination, we analyze a petitioner's accomplishments and weigh 
the totality of the evidence to determine if his successes are sufficient to demonstrate that he has 
extraordinary ability in the field of endeavor. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2), (3); Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20). See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual B.2, 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual (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). 
In this matter, we determine that the Petitioner has not shown his eligibility. 
2 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues the Director's decision "presented a nonspecific, boilerplate 
disclaimer that the [ final merits determination] was based on the 'totality of the record,' the structure 
of the final merits determination suggests otherwise." The Petitioner alleges that since the Director 
organized his final merits discussion of the evidence in a sequential order similar to when he reviewed 
the evidence to determine that he met the plain language of three criteria, that he erred by "isolat[ing] 
that evidence and did not collectively consider it in determining that he did not meet the regulatory 
definitions for extraordinary ability at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3). Specifically, the Petitioner contends 
the Director failed to correctly analyze his testimonial letters, publication record, citation history, 
notable citations by others, patent applications, research funding, his academic and experiential 
credentials, and his peer review of the work of others. 
We have reviewed the Petitioner's initial submission, his response and additional documentation from 
the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Director's decision, the Petitioner's appeal brief: 
including the testimonial letters that the Director considered in denying the petition which were 
resubmitted on appeal. We do not concur with the Petitioner's contentions, and we adopt and affirm 
the Director's decision. See Matter ofBurbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994); see also Giday v. 
INS, 113 F.3d 230,234 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting that the practice of adopting and affirming the decision 
below has been "universally accepted by every other circuit that has squarely confronted the issue"); 
Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1996) (joining eight circuit courts in holding that appellate 
adjudicators may adopt and affirm the decision below as long as they give "individualized 
consideration " to the case). Here, the decision reflects the Director thoroughly reviewed the record 
and correctly and sufficiently articulated reasons why the Petitioner's evidence and assertions of 
eligibility fell short in demonstrating that he meets the requirements for classification as an individual 
with extraordinary ability in the sciences. 
For example, relating to the Petitioner's service as a peer reviewer of the work of other scientists in 
the final merits determination, an evaluation of the significance of his experience is appropriate to 
determine if such evidence indicates the required extraordinary ability for this highly restrictive 
classification. See Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1121-22. 1 In evaluating this evidence, the Director 
acknowledged that the Petitioner had performed work as a peer reviewer of manuscripts submitted by 
other scientists to scientific journals from 2020 to 2022 but explained that the record did not 
sufficiently show how his judging experiences compared to others performing similar work, or how 
the quantity or quality of his review work stands out from his peers. On appeal, the Petitioner does 
not specifically address the Director's concerns about the probative value of his peer review evidence 
in the denial. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
Rather, he asserts that he is not required to show that his peer review work "alone" must meet the 
extraordinary ability definition but that such evidence must be considered along with the other 
evidence in totality. Based on our review of the evidence and the Director's decision we conclude that 
the Director thoroughly examined and considered the submitted documentation; he discussed various 
aspects of the evidence individually, but collectively considered the entire record to ultimately 
determine that the Petitioner is not an individual of extraordinary ability. To determine whether a 
1 See also 6 USC1S Policy Manual, supra, at F.2 (stating that an individual's participation should be evaluated to determine 
whether it was indicative of being one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor and 
enjoying sustained national or international acclaim). 
3 
petitioner has established eligibility for a requested benefit by a preponderance of the evidence, USCIS 
must examine each piece of evidence - both individually and within the context of the entire record -
for relevance, probative value, and credibility. Matter ofChawathe, supra. While the Petitioner may 
disagree with aspects of the Director's analysis of the evidence, he has not sufficiently demonstrated 
that the Director failed to consider the record under the preponderance of the evidence standard, or 
that he otherwise erred as a matter of law or policy in denying the petition. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than those progressing toward the top. Matter ofPrice, 20 I&N Dec. 
953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) ( concluding that even major league level athletes do not automatically 
meet the statutory standards for classification as an individual of "extraordinary ability,"); Visinscaia, 
4 F. Supp. 3d at 131 (internal quotation marks omitted) (finding that the extraordinary ability 
designation is "extremely restrictive by design,"); Hamal v. Dep 't ofHomeland Sec. (Hamal II), No. 
19-cv-2534, 2021 WL 2338316, at *5 (D.D.C. June 8, 2021), ajf'd, 2023 WL 1156801 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 
31, 2023) ( determining that EB-1 visas are "reserved for a very small percentage of prospective 
immigrants"). See also Hamal v. Dep 't of Homeland Sec. (Hamal I), No. 19-cv-2534, 2020 WL 
2934954, at * 1 (D.D.C. June 3, 2020) ( citing Kazarian, 596 at 1122 (upholding denial of petition of a 
published theoretical physicist specializing in non-Einsteinian theories of gravitation) (stating that 
"[c]ourts have found that even highly accomplished individuals fail to win this designation")); Lee v. 
Ziglar, 237 F. Supp. 2d 914, 918 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (finding that "arguably one of the most famous 
baseball players in Korean history" did not qualify for visa as a baseball coach). 
Here, the Petitioner has not shown the significance of his work is indicative of the required sustained 
national or international acclaim or 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 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). The 
record does not contain sufficient evidence establishing the Petitioner among the upper echelon in his 
field. The Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4