dismissed EB-1A Case: Biomedical Research

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF S-S-G-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN. 24.2018 
PETITION: FORM I-140. IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner. a doctoral candidate and researcher in the field of biomedical research, seeks 
classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in the sciences. S'ee Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(1 )(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(1 )(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 the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Petitioner met at least three of the ten initial evidence requirements. 
On appeaL the Petitioner submits additional evidence, asserting that he meets the necessary criteria 
and qualifies for the classification. 
Upon de novo review. we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l )(A) of the Act describes qualified immigrants for this classification as follows: 
(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 111 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 
.
Maller (?(S-S-G-
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth two options for satisfying this classification 's initial evidence 
requirements. First a petitioner can demonstrate a one-time achievement that is a major , 
internationally recognized award. Alternatively, he or she must provide documentation that meets a t 
least three of the ten categories listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including item s such as 
awards, published material in cc11ain media. and scholarly articles). 
Where a petitioner meets the se initial evidence requirements , we then consider the totalit y of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individu al is among the small perce ntage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS. 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 20 I 0) .1 
Thi s two- step analysi s is consistent with our holding that the '·truth is to be determined not by the 
quantity of evidence alone but by its qualit y,'' as well as the principle that we examine '·each piece of 
evidence for relevance, prob ative value , and credibility , both individuall y and within the context of 
the totality of the evidence. to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true. " Maller of 
Chavmthe, 25 T&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 201 0). 
H. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a doctoral candidate at in the tield of biom edical resea rch in 
vaccines and immunolo gical memory. Because he has not indicated or established that he ha s 
rece ived a major , internationall y reco gnized award. to meet the initial evidence requir ements. he 
must satisfy at least three of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R . § 204.5(h)(3)( i)-(x) . 
In denying the petition , the Director found that the Petitioner met two criteria : participati on as a 
judging under 8 C.F .R. § 204 .5(h)(3)(iv) and authorship of scholarly articles under 8 C.F. R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). On appeal, he maintains that he also meet s the lesser prizes or awards and original 
contributions criteria under 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) and (v). We have reviewed all of the evidence 
in the record, and concluded that it does not support a finding that the Petitioner satisfies a t l eas t 
three criteria. 2 
Documentation (~lth e alien ·s receipt of" lesser nationally or internationally reco~n i::: e d prizes 
or award sfvr excellence in the.field ofendeavor. 8 C.F. R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The Petitioner submitted certificates indicating that he was twice se lected for the 
of the . and that 
he was selected as a The record shows that during 
thes e fellowships , he performed research with other scientists. In general, fell ows hips offer 
recipients training or educational opportunities and funding. While they might be selective , without 
1 
This case discusses 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, 13 I -32 (D.D.C. 20 13); Rijal v. USC/S, 772 F. Supp. 2d I 339 (W.D. Wash. 20 II). 
2 We will discuss those criteria the Petitioner has raised and for which the record contains relevant evidence. 
2 
.
A'fatter c?fS-S-G-
additional corroboration, they do not qualify as prizes or awards that recognize the recipients" 
excellence in a particular field. Moreover, the Petitioner did not provide any documentary evidence 
to demonstrate that the fellowships are recognized nationally or internationally. Finally. while they 
may be prestigious, fellowships are not nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards 
because only other students. not established experts in the field, compete tor such funding. 3 Academic 
awards and honors received while preparing for a vocation generally fall short of constituting a 
national or international prize or award for recognition in the field. As such, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that receiving funding, in the form of a fellowship, tor his research and academic 
training constitutes receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence 
in the field of endeavor. 
The Petitioner also submitted documentation demonstrating that he was selected as a listee in 
and equated this recognition with a prize or an award under this criterion. 
However. the record does not include evidence that the a for-profit biographic 
volume, is nationally or internationally recognized or that its profiles constitute prizes or awards that 
recognize excellence in the field of endeavor. He therefore has not established that he meets this 
regulatory criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media. relating to the alien ·s work in the field(<H· which class?fication is sought, Such evidence 
shall include the title. date. and aulhor of the malerial, and any necessmy translation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3 )(iii). 
The record contains five articles that cite the Petitioner's work. The Director determined. and we 
agree, that the articles do not establish that he meets this criterion. 
Articles that cite the Petitioner's work are primarily about the authors' own work or recent trends in the 
field, and are not about the Petitioner or his work. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3 )(iii) requires 
that the published material be ''about the alien.'' The submitted documentation does not discuss the 
merits of the Petitioner's work, his standing in the field, any significant impact that his work has had on 
the field, or any other information that is about the Petitioner as required by this criterion. Moreover. 
we note that the articles citing to the Petitioner's work similarly referenced numerous other 
authors. While these research articles are relevant to the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v) and will be addressed there, they do not meet this criterion. 
'The record indicates that at the time the Petitioner received the fellowships in 2007 and 2008. he was a studcm pursuing 
his undergraduate degree at the 
.
Matter (~fS-S-G-
Evidence of' the alien's participation. either individual(v or on a panel. as ajudge (~l 
the work of' others in the same or an allied field (?f .1peci{ication for vrhich 
classification is sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The Petitioner submits evidence that he has reviewed manuscripts submitted tor publication m 
and 
This evidence meets the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
Evidence (?l !he alien's original scient[fic. scholarly. artistic. athletic. or business-related 
contributions (?lmajor significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3 )(v). 
This regulatory criterion contains multiple evidentiary elements that the Petitioner must satisfy. The 
first is evidence of his contributions in the field. These contributions must have already been 
realized rather than being potentiaL future contributions . He must also demonstrate that his 
contributions are original, and are scientific , scholarly, artistic. athletic , or business-related in nature. 
The final requirement is that the contributions rise to the level of major significance in the field as a 
whole, rather than to a project or to an organization. The phrase "major significance" is not 
superfluous and. thus, it has meaning. See Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Inveslor Fund, L.P., 51 
F.3d 28, 31 (3d Cir. 1995), quoted in APWU v. Poller, 343 F.3d 619, 626 (2d Cir. 2003). The term 
''contributions of major significance'' connotes that the Petitioner's work has significantly impacted 
the field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v); see also Visinscaia v. Beers , 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 134 (D.D.C. 
2013). 
The Petitioner submitted letters from two professors at who served on 
the Thesis Advisory Committee for his doctorate work.
4 
M.D., Professor of 
stated that he critically judged the Petitioner's dissertation research, and has 
determined that his research "otlers a new potential way to enhance the effectiveness of vaccines," 
and is "capable of offering a necessary breakthrough in the field of vaccinology.·· 
M.D .. Chief of the Department of 
provided that the Petitioner "possesses the necessary drive and ambition to rise to the top of his 
field.' ' Although both and indicated that the Petitioner's research likely 
will have a positiv e impact and improve the field of memory T-cells. the possibility of a future 
impact, even a profound one, does not satisfy the regulatory requirements promulgated at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3 )(v). 
a scientist at the in India. stated that he first 
became acquainted with the Petitioner while he was an undergraduate summer research fellow at the 
~ On appeal, the Petitioner contends that and whose letters 
are discussed below, ''have no history with [the Petitioner]" and that they serve as independent experts. Based on the 
claimed relationships outlined in their letters, however, this statement directly contradicts the statements of the authors. 
See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582. 591-92 (BIA 1988) (finding that an inconsistency must be resolved with 
independent objective evidence). 
4 
.
Matter ()[S-S-G-
He commended the Petitioner's ''tremendous curiosity and 
enthusiasm," and noted that a national journal published his research as a fellow and garnered him 
an invitation to return as a summer research fellow for a second year, during which time he showed 
''creativity in the field of immunology." He concluded by endorsing the Petitioner's petition ''so that 
he can continue working hard to solve the current vaccination issues." 
Assistant Professor in Pediatrics at the 
in Thailand, stated 
that he was the Petitioner's supervisor on the 
project at the at He stated 
that the Petitioner's 
"expertise in T-cell immunology helped expedite the project significantly," that his "diligence. hard 
work, and expertise in T -cells would keep advancing the Jield." and that his current research ··can 
prove instrumental."' 
Although these attestations discuss the potential impact of the Petitioner's work, none of his 
references provide examples of how his work is already influencing the field such that it qualities as 
a contribution of major significance. While the evidence demonstrates that the Petitioner is a 
talented researcher with potential, it falls short of establishing that he had already made contributions 
of major significance. 
The Petitioner also provided a citation index from 
demonstrated that his article entitled 
in support of the petition. which 
received seven citations in 2014, and his articles entitled 
was cited twice in 2013. He 
has not sufficiently explained how these articles, which received a limited number of citations. 
exhibit his impact within the field in a manner consistent with this criterion's requirements. For 
example, he has not submitted evidence to demonstrate that a good number of researchers have been 
sutliciently influenced by his work such that it rises to the level of major significance in the field, or 
that the number of citations is indicative of a widespread impact in the field. The Petitioner submits 
a letter from Designated Assistant Professor at on 
appeal, who cited to the Petitioner's work. This letter states that the Petitioner's research "is capable 
of making even more significant impact in the years to come:· Although claims that '·at 
least six different groups have reported the use of after the publication:' the record does not 
include independent evidence to corroborate this statement. While it appears that the Petitioner's T­
cell research is novel, he has not established that his work has impacted his field at a level consistent 
with the regulatory requirement of contributions of major significance. See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d 
at 135-136 (concluding that the decision of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USC IS) to 
give limited weight to uncorroborated assertions from practitioners in the field was not arbitrary and 
capricious). 
In response to the Director's request for evidence, the Petitioner submitted a second letter from 
that further expanded on his joint research with the Petitioner. He claims that the 
Petitioner's report on optimal culture conditions for culturing T-cclls in was novel and 
original, and that their joint research on the project, published in 2014 , "inspired many groups 
.
Maller of S-S-G-
to start using in culturing and expanding T-cells outside the human body to meet their 
translational research needs :· concludes that subsequent papers report ed results 
they achieved after relying on the joint research they conducted on the project, thereby 
establishing the original contributions of the Petitioner as ones of major significance. Although this 
letter discusses the published articles that resulted from their joint research, and that others have 
cited to their work , does not sufficiently explain the impact the Petitioner 's research 
has made in the field as a whole. 
The submitted letters generall y praise the Petitioner's resea rch. and conclude by recommendin g the 
approval of his petition for permanent residence in the United States. Solicited letter s from 
colleague s that do not speci ficall y identify contributions or spec ific examples of how those 
contributions influenced the field are insufficient to meet this criterion. Kazarian v. USCIS. 580 
F.Jd 1030. 1036 (2d Cir. 2009) , a.ffd in part , 596 F.Jd 1115. The opinions of experts in the tield are 
not without weight and have been considered above. USCIS may , in its discretion, use as advisory 
opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Muller (~(Caron International , 19 I&N Dec. 
791, 795 (Comm'r 1988) . However, USCIS is ultimate ly responsible for making the tina! 
determination regarding a petitioner's eligibility for the benefit sought. /d. The submission of 
letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive confirmation of eligibility; USC IS 
may, as we have done above , evaluate the content of those letter s to determine whether they support 
the foreign national's eligibility . See id. at 795; see also Visinscaia. 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 
(upholding our decision to give minimal weight to general. solicited letters from colleagues or 
assoc iates that do not provide details on contributions of major significance in the field) . 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires '"[e]vidence of the alien's original scientific, 
scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contribution s of major signfficance in the lield." 
(Emphasis added). Without additional, specific evidence showing that the Petitioner"s work has been 
unusually influentiaL widely applied by the field, or has otherwise risen to the level of contributions of 
major significance, he has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien ·s authorship qf scholarly articles in the field. in pn~lessional or major 
trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
The Petitioner docum ented his authorship of scholarly articles in professional publication s. such as 
the and 
Thus, the Director concluded that 
the Petitioner satisfied this criterion. and the record supports that finding . 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner is not eligible for the classification becaus e he has not submitted the required initial 
evidence of either a one-time achievement or document s that meet at least three of the ten criteria 
listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) . Thus. we need not fully address the totalit y of the materials in 
a final merit s determination. Kazarian , 596 F.Jd at 1119-20. Nevertheless. we have reviewed the 
Matter of S-S-G-
record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a finding that the Petitioner has 
established the level of expertise required for the classification sought. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofS-S-G-. ID# 833661 (AAO Jan. 24, 2018) 
"7