dismissed EB-1A Case: Biomedical Research

MATTER OF X-Q-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY23,2017 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a biomedical research scientist, 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 Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had satisfied only two of the initial evidentiary criteria, of 
which he must meet at least three. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. With his appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and additional 
evidence. The Petitioner contends that he meets the original contributions criterion and possesses 
the required level of expertise for this classification. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states in pertinent part: 
(1) Priority workers.-- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants 
who are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -An alien is described in this subparagraph 
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, 
.
Matter of X-Q-
(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 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 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). 
Satisfaction of at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this 
classification. 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), aff'd, 683 
F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (holding that 
the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality" and that U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services examines "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"). Accordingly, where a petitioner submits 
qualifying evidence under at least three criteria, we will determine whether the totality of 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner was working as a research scientist in the department of 
physiology and biophysics at 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 alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). In denying 
the Petition, the Director found that 
that the Petitioner met the judging criterion under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and the scholarly articles criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). On appeal, the 
Petitioner maintains that he also meets the original contributions criterion under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v). We have reviewed all ofthe evidence in the record of proceedings, and it does not 
support a finding that the Petitioner meets the plain language requirements of at least three criteria. 
2 
.
Matter of X-Q-
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of 
the work of others in the same or an allied field of specification for which 
classification is sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The record contains evidence reflecting that the Petitioner has reviewed articles for scientific 
journals such as 
and We also note that he has served on the editorial board of 
the Accordingly, the Director found that the Petitioner 
met this criterion, and we agree with that determination. 
/ 
Evidence of the alien's original scient(fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The Petitioner submitted his publications and presentations, citation evidence for his published work, 
and letters of recommendation from colleagues and independent evaluators. The Director 
acknowledged this evidence, but found that it was not sufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner's 
work constituted original contributions of major significance in the field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner indicates that he has authored 14 highly influential scholarly peer-reviewed 
articles, four review papers, two book chapters, and numerous published abstracts, representing a 
"productive and exemplary record compared to that of my peers." 1 He maintains that his original 
contributions manifest primarily in two of his peer-reviewed articles: a 2009 article entitled 
published in and a 2013 article 
entitled ' 
published in The Petitioner asserts that these studies have been 
"unanimously recognized as majorly significant," and "highly cited throughout the field." 
The Petitioner describes the first study as clarifyipg the links between and and 
cardiac arrhythmia. He notes that the article has received 22 citations since its publication in 2009, 
that his work "has had an enormous impact on the medical sector as well as on the everyday lives of 
1 With respect to the Petitioner's published work, the regulations contain a separate criterion concerning the authorship 
of scholarly articles in professional publications. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). In Kazarian v. USC!$, 580 F.3d I 030, 
1036 (9th Cir. 2009), the court held that 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. In 20 I 0, the Kazarian court 
reaffirmed its holding that we did not abuse its discretion in finding that the petitioner had not demonstrated contributions of 
major significance. 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. 
3 
.
Matter of X-Q-
US citizens," and that "numerous independent studies have been influenced by this finding," though 
he only specifically identifies one study. Namely, the Petitioner claims that his work greatly 
influenced the subsequent research of of the He 
states that article, published in identified his work "among 
the most significant studies." article, however does not directly cite the Petitioner' s 
work; rather, it lists his article among dozens of examples of cardiology publications documenting 
the important role of in the development of cardiac arrhythmia. Even within the one 
article noted, there is no specific discussion of the Petitioner's findings or particular references to his 
work such that we can conclude that his research represents an original contribution of major 
significance. 
The Petitioner also points to a letter from 
in France, in which he indicates that the Petitioner's cardiac arrhythmia study expanded . 
understanding of a in Chinese patients. references several studies, 
including study noted above, that cite the Petitioner's work, and he describes how the 
authors "significantly relied" on his findings to "perform their studies." An examination of the 
citing papers, however, reveals brief citations to the Petitioner's work that do not include specific 
discussion of the research or otherwise support characterization of its importance to 
their work. He also notes that the Petitioner is "most qualified to continue making substantial 
progress in the years to come," and "I stand to benefit from [the Petitioner's] research and so does 
the U.S." These statements, however, are prospective and do not show that the Petitioner's work has 
already had this effect. Eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(1)(12). Thus, expectation regarding the possible future impact of the 
Petitioner's work is not evidence of his eligibility at the time of filing. 
The Petitioner further maintains that his work involving the exploration of neurons and their 
role in mediating puberty and in mice constitutes a contribution of major significance. He 
notes that the paper articulating his findings was published in 2013 in the journal, 
and that it has since garnered 32 independent citations, placing it among the top 10% most highly 
cited articles in the field of biology and biochemistry for that year.2 However, while the Petitioner 
identifies several studies that he claims found his research "to be an indispensable contribution to the 
field of neuroendocrinology ," the record does not support these statements. For example , the 
Petitioner contends that his work has been instrumental in advancing the research of 
assistant professor of medicine at states that the 
Petitioner's work was a "guiding resource" for other researchers and that it was "particularly useful" 
to his own research discussing the neuronal mechanisms governing metabolism. Yet, 
article cites the Petitioner's research only once, and does not offer a detailed discussion of his 
findings. 
Similarly, an associate professor at 
notes that the Petitioner's work on insulin and cells was a "vital resource" and was 
2 The Petitioner submits a report from regarding rate of citation by year and subject.. 
4 
.
Matter of X-Q-
an "innovative advance in this subject area.'' He explains that he selected the Petitioner's study from 
among hundreds to be "featured" in his review. However, a review of article reveals 
four brief citations to the Petitioner's study and lists him as one of over 350 referencds. 
Furthermore, does not offer specific examples of how Petitioner's work has affected the 
field of neuroendocrinology, or has otherwise been of major significance to the field. 
professor of neurobiology at the 
writes that the Petitioner has provided "new and pivotal information regarding the relationship 
between insulin signaling in neurons and its direct association with puberty initiation in mice." 
He also comments that he has cited the Petitioner's work in his research; however, a review of 
article reveals only a single brief reference and does not include details or explanations of 
its significance. 
In addition to these specific examples, the Petitioner points to his citation record generally as 
evidence that he 
has made contributions of major significance. In support of his statement, he offers 
a report entitled ' The report asserts that, in 
order to be useful, citations must be normalized for subject category and publication year. The 
Petitioner claims that since his citation rate exceeds the average for his field, his research 
demonstrates a contribution of major significance. Although the Petitioner's work regarding 
neurons and their role in mediating puberty and in mice has garnered a number of 
independent citations and added to the pool of knowledge" in his field, he has not shown that his 
approach has affected the field in a major way, that his method has been widely utilized, or that his 
work otherwise constitutes a contribution of major significance in the field. 
Regarding the remaining articles the Petitioner has authored, he previously provided 
search results indicating fewer than ten citations for each. The Petitioner 
provided several examples 
of articles that cited to his work; however the articles 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." Additionally, while we do not question that the Petitioner's research has 
value, in order for an institution to accept any research for graduation, publication, or funding, it 
must offer new and useful information to the pool of knowledge. Not every medical researcher who 
performs original research that adds to the pool of knowledge has inherently made a contribution of 
"major significance" to the field. The record does not show that the Petitioner's research has 
substantially influenced the field, or otherwise rises to the level of an original contribution of major 
significance. 
Next, the Petitioner asserts that his roles in several clinical trials represent contributions of major 
significance. The Petitioner submits evidence that he has participated in the 
and trials. Published in and the 
the evidence indicates that these clinical trials are important contributions to treatment 
and prevention of stroke and chronic heart failure. However, the Petitioner has not established that 
5 
.
Matter of X-Q; 
his involvement in the trials supports a finding that they constitute his contributions. For example, 
the Petitioner was listed as a "coordinator" for the data center, 
one of many hospitals gathering information for the trial. For the clinical trial, 
the Petitioner is listed as "data entry." The publication documents do not mention the Petitioner as 
an author of the articles, nor is his name listed in the groupings of hundreds of and 
investigators. 
On appeal, the Petitioner provides an additional letter discussing the above-named trials from 
of notes that the Petitioner was in a 
postgraduate training program and therefore, "could not be assigned paperwork as an investigator," 
but that he did have an MD degree and the work he contributed should be considered as an 
"investigator or sub-investigator." He goes on to state that the study "involved more than hundreds 
of hospitals, thousands of investigators, physicians, pharmacists, and nurses," and that the 
Petitioner's role is "equivalent to an investigator." Even if we were to agree that the Petitioner was 
an "investigator" in these large clinical trials, without additional evidence specifically explaining the 
role that the Petitioner played in each of these studies, we cannot conclude that his work represents a 
contribution of major significance. ' 
As another form of evidence under this criterion, the Petitioner contends that that a number of 
experts have offered testimony regarding his contributions of major significance.3 For example, 
a professor in the 
. noted that the Petitioner's work "has dramatically changed the clinical guidelines 
in treating cardiac arrhythmia," though he does not elaborate or explain how the guidelines have 
changed or provide specific examples of how the Petitioner's work has influenced that change. 
an associate professor at the noted that she 
collaborated with the Petitioner on his research regarding insulin and cells. She notes that 
their findings "reveal that neurons do not directly mediate the critical role that insulin and 
leptin play in reproduction," but she did not explain the significance of this finding or offer specific 
examples of how it has been used or implemented in the field. 
The record also contains other recommendation letters from the Petitioner's peers. Although the 
letters praise his work, they do not explain how the Petitioner's contributions are "of major 
significance in the field." Instead, the letters reference the importance of the Petitioner's works as 
indicated by their publication in professional journals and presentation at conferences. 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. Again, 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. 
3 
While we discuss only a sampling of these letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
6 
.
:.'vfatter of X-Q-
Evidence of the alien 's authorship of scholarly articles in the .field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
The Petitioner documented his authorship of scholarly articles in professional publications such as 
and Thus, the Director concluded that 
the Petitioner satisfied this criterion , and the record supports that finding. 
B. Summary 
As explained above, the record only satisfies two of the regulatory criteria. As a result, the 
Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three ofthe ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
( 
Had the Petitioner satisfied at least three evidentiary categories, the next step would be a final merits 
determination that considers all of evidence in the context of whether or not the Petitioner has 
demonstrated a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who 
have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor," that the individual "has sustained national or 
international acclaim, and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of 
expertise." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Although we need 
not provide the type of final merits determination referenced in Kazarian , a review of the record in 
the aggregate supports a finding that the Petitioner has not established the level of expertise required 
for the classification sought. Specifically, while the Petitioner has documented publication of peer­
reviewed articles that have been cited by other researchers, along with peer-review activity, the 
evidence does not sufficientl y demonstrate that he is in the small percentage at the top of the field or 
show the sustained national or international acclaim required for this highly restrictive classification. 
Nor does the record include extensive documentation showing recognition of the Petitioner's 
achievements in the field. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that he qualifies as an individual of extraordinary ability under 
section 203(b)(l)(A) ofthe Act. Accordingly, he has not established eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as A1atter of X-Q-, ID# 396401 (AAO May 23, 2017)