dismissed EB-1A Case: Biomedical Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 9920114 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : AUG . 19, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a postdoctoral researcher in the field of biomedical science, seeks classification as an 
alien of extraordinary ability . See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 
8 U.S .C. § l 153(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 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)(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 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). 
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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner indicates employment as a senior postdoctoral fellow in the field of biomedical science 
atl I University School ofMedicine'sl I Louisiana. 1 Because 
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 determined that the Petitioner fulfilled two of the initial 
evidentiary criteria, judging at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and scholarly articles at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). The Petitioner's documentary evidence indicates that he has peer-reviewed 
manuscripts for several journals including PLoS ONE and Bioscience Reports. In addition, the record 
contains evidence that the Petitioner has authored scholarly articles published in journals including the 
Journal of Applied Microbiology, Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology, American 
Journal of Physiology, Circulation: Cardiovascular Genetics, and Cell Cycle. Accordingly, we agree 
with the Director that the Petitioner fulfilled the requirements of the judging and scholarly articles 
criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he meets the requirements of the criterion relating to original 
contributions of major significance in his field, discussed below. After reviewing all 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 sign[ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
In order to satisfy this criterion, petitioners must establish that not only have they made original 
contributions, but also that those contributions have been of major significance in the field.2 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 in the field. 
1 See the Petitioner's curriculum vitae and employment verification letter submitted at initial filing. 
2 See 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 ADJ 1-14 8-9 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html (stating 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 
As a preliminary matter, we will address the Petitioner's claim that the Director's decision "imputed 
additional regulations throughout these proceedings that are not contained anywhere in the [ Act or the 
regulations]." The Petitioner, however, does not cite to specific examples in the Director's decision 
where he "imputed additional regulations." Instead, the Petitioner cites generally to Kazarian and 
Gulen v. Chertoff, 2008 WL 2779001 (E.D. Pa. 2008) in arguing that the Director unilaterally imposed 
novel substantive or evidentiary requirements beyond those set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). In 
contrast to those decisions, the Director did not improperly require, as in Kazarian, that university 
dissertations reviewed by the Petitioner be from a university with which he was not affiliated to satisfy 
the requirements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), or evidence that other scholars had 
cited to his publications to meet the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). Nor did the Director 
improperly determine, as in Gulen, that the Petitioner's publications were not scholarly and did not 
satisfy the requirements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) based solely on their intended 
audience. 3 Rather, the Director's decision concluded that the Petitioner's evidence satisfied the 
regulatory requirements of both those criteria. The Petitioner's reference to the Kazarian and Gulen 
decisions is therefore not persuasive. 
The Petitioner provided evidence reflecting the originality of his research through recommendation 
letters praising him for his contributions, as discussed below. Here, the authors do not provide specific 
examples of contributions that are indicative of major significance. In general, the letters recount the 
Petitioner's research and findings, indicate their publication in journals, and point to the citation of his 
work by others. Although they reflect the novelty of the projects on which he worked, they do not 
show how his research and findings have been considered of such importance and how their impact 
on the field rises to the level required by this criterion. 
The Petitioner provided several expert opinion letters that address his research, including one fromO 
I l a professor of biomedical informatics at the University I I School of 
Medicine, who states that the Petitioner is "an outstanding scientist with impressive achievements in 
the field of molecular biology associated withl I" specificallv, in understanding 
the role o enes in the develo ment of I ] He provides that 
genetic vanat10n in.__~-----~-----~ as been reported to be associated with! I 
§
regulation and.__ ____ ~ disease, and that the Petitioner has worked on resequencing the 
ene for identification of novel variants that may have clinical implication of I I 
and I ~ disease. He asserts that the Petitioner has gained "international 
recognition" for his original research on thel ~ in American, African American, 
and Han Chinese American healthy subjects. He states that the Petitioner's 2013 article in Circulation: 
~vascular Genetics, showing that'-----------------~ polymorphisms 
L___J were novel, advanced the fielrs understanding of these genetic variants in the clinical 
implication of.__ ______ ___,and _ r disease risk, and he notes that he cited the 
Petitioner's findings in his own article in Genome Biology. 
3 Further, in contrast to the broad precedential authority of the case law of a United States circuit court (such as with 
Kazarian), we are not bound to follow the published decision of a United States district court in cases arising within the 
same district. See Matter of K-S-, 20 l&N Dec. 715 (BIA 1993). The reasoning underlying a district judge's decision will 
be given due consideration when it is properly before us; however, the analysis does not have to be followed as a matter 
oflaw. Id. at 719. 
3 
,,__ _______ a pharmacology professor who worked with the Petitioner at the I.__ ___ ~ 
laboratory, states that the Petitioner's research "defined for the first time genetic 
Lv_a_r~ia-t1~·o_n_i~n-t~h-e===== in 3 ethnic populations by resequencin~ ~" He asserts that the results of 
the Petitioner's resequencing and functional genomic studies" reatly improved our understanding of 
the clinical implications of these genetic variants i disease risk and the effect of drugs 
that mediate their effect via the system." Regarding the examination of the 
relationship betweenLJan~_~failure published in the Petitioner's 2016 Cell Cycle article, 
I lstates that in demonstrating "thatl lprotectj ~ from I I via inhibition 
of both cytosoliq l[the Petitioner's] findings lead to new drugs for treating~! -~ 
failure in a more efficient and effective way." He does not indicate, however, that new drugs or other 
therapies for treating heart failure have been designed or developed based on the Petitioner's research. 
a molecular biologist atl ,Is ain, .__ ____________ _, 
states that the Petitioner has made "extraordinary contributions to the study of ti-""'-~----, 
I-,-----,---' 
" He provides that the Petitioner "found that th is active 
~---,-----,---=-------,-----:-' 
against the Gram-negative plant pathogen ~-------;=====1--..--------,,.---------1 which causes 
bacterial blight, the most destructive bacterial disease.___~' He states that the findings published 
in the Petitioner's 2001 Journal of Applied Microbiology article "open a new research field of the 
genetic engineering of resistance to bacterial blight I I and for the design of newl I 
biocontrol agents." He indicates that he cited to Petitioner's work in his 2011 FEMS Microbiology 
Review article. 
The Petitioner also submitted a letter froml lhis collea~University. 
Noting that individuals with~ I infection,L___} states that the 
Petitioner's recent work has demonstrated that the ene editin technolo CRISPR/Cas9 can 
efficiently mediate the editing of the L_ __ _,----,_ _______ ---r---.--_J resulting in 
knockout ofD, and "paves the way to treat.__ _ _, infected patients wit ~-_, ockout MSCs." 
He also asserts that the Petitioner "made remarkable achievements in establishing a novel model for 
structure and function analysis of the gene . . . . thereby facilitating development and 
validation of new drugs targetin....._ __ _,mutations." 
Overall, the expert letters have not elaborated or discussed whether the Petitioner's findings have been 
implemented beyond informing the research of other scientists in the same field, and if so, the extent 
of their application. While the letters praise the Petitioner's research as original, valuable and 
promising, they have not sufficiently detailed in what ways his studies have already advanced the state 
of research in this field or elaborated on how the Petitioner's work has already impacted the wider 
field beyond the teams of researchers who have directly cited his articles. Letters that specifically 
articulate how a petitioner's contributions are of major significance to the field and its impact on 
subsequent work add value. 4 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. 5 Moreover, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory statements. 17 5 6, Inc. v. The 
US. Atty Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
4 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9. 
5 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 9. 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). 
4 
In addition, the Petitioner maintains that his articles have collectively garnered 294 citations at the 
time of filing. As it relates to the citation of his work, the Director indicated that "the field in which 
[the Petitioner] works ... shows many articles with many more citations than [the Petitioner's] articles, 
casting doubt on [his] claim that [his] articles have been a contribution of major significance in the 
field." The Petitioner submits his publication and citation record from Google Scholar and from the 
China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) China Integrated Knowledge Resources System, 
which provides comparable information for Chinese language publications that cite to his work. 6 The 
evidence from Google Scholar reflects that his four highest cited articles received 38 (Journal of 
Applied Microbiology), 27 (Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology), 12 (American 
Journal of Physiology) and 10 (Circulation: Cardiovascular Genetics) citations, respectively. 7 The 
documentation from CNKI indicates that two articles published in the Journal of Agricultural 
Biotechnology received 198 and 9 citations, respectively. But this evidence does not show that the 
impact of his work on the overall field of biomedical science or related fields rises to the level of an 
original contribution of major significance. Highly-cited publications alone are not sufficient under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that they were of "major significance," as the number of 
citations for a given article often does not provide sufficient context to establish the impact or 
importance of a given researcher's work in the field. That context must be provided by other evidence 
in the record. 
We acknowledge, however, that a petitioner may present evidence that his articles "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 [his] work as authoritative in the field, may be probative 
of the significance of [his] contributions to the field of endeavor. "8 In this case, the Petitioner has not 
provided evidence that would, for example, allow us to compare his citations for individual articles to 
other similarly, highly cited articles that the field views as having been of ma·or si nificance. The 
Petitioner has demonstrated that his most cited English language article is ' 
published in 2001 in Journal of Applied Microbiology. While the Petitioner submitted corroborating 
evidence in the form of an expert opinion letter that briefly addresses his research in this area, that 
evidence, for the reasons already discussed, is not sufficient to establish that the Petitioner's research 
is regarded as an original contribution of major significance that has remarkably impacted or 
influenced his field. 
Further, the record included published articles, including international articles, that cited to his work 
in support of his claim that other scientists have relied on his research. A review of those articles, 
6 We note that evidence that summarizes citations to the Petitioner's entire body of published work, and claims that his 
overall citation rate is high. do not demonstrate that any specific work of his is so widely cited and relied upon that it is 
considered to have made a major impact in his field. In general, the comparison of the Petitioner's cumulative citations to 
others in the field is often more appropriate in determining whether the record shows sustained national or international 
acclaim and demonstrates that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor in a final merits 
determination if the Director determined he met at least three of the regulatory criteria. See Kazarian 596 F .3d at 11 15. 
7 The Google Scholar list indicated that his remaining article published in Cell Cycle did not receive any citations. The 
Petitioner did not specify how many citations, if any, for each of his individual articles contained self-citations. Moreover, 
in response to the Director's request for evidence and on appeal, the Petitioner submits an updated Google Scholar list 
reflecting an increase of citations to his individual articles. The Petitioner did not demonstrate how many of the additional 
citations occurred in papers published prior to or at the time of initial filing. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(1 ). 
8 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8. 
5 
though, does not show the significance of the Petitioner's research to the overall field beyond the 
authors who cited to his work. 9 For instance, the Petitioner provided an article titled I I 
~----------------------~ (Cancer Letters), in which the authors 
cite to the Petitioner's Journal o Cancer Research and Clinical Oncolo : article to su ort their 
statement that 
However, the article does not distinguish or highlight the Petitioner's written work from 
the other 118 papers cited in the article. Moreover, the paper does not indicate that the Petitioner's 
article is authoritative or otherwise viewed as being majorly significant in the field. While it is likely 
that the Petitioner's published research has incrementally advanced the science in his field, which is 
reasonably expected of research deemed worthy of publication, his publication record does not 
establish how he has generated widespread commentary or acceptance and application of his findings, 
nor does the evidence establish that his published studies have advanced the field in a significant way. 
As a result, the Petitioner has not shown how his published original research has made an impact that 
rises to the level of "major significance" consistent with this regulatory criterion. 
The Petitioner also provided rankings which appear on the website of Scimago Journal & Country 
Rank for several journals that have published his work and articles that cited to his work. The 
Petitioner asserts that the journal ranking of those journals sufficiently establish their impact. The 
impact of a given journal is not persuasive evidence of the impact of every article published in that 
journal. 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, the Petitioner has not established that publication in a highly ranked journal alone 
demonstrates a contribution of major significance in the field. As stated above, the record does not 
contain evidence that the Petitioner's published articles have garnered widespread citations or other 
response in the academic field. 
The Petitioner further emphasizes that his research was cited in several articles and press releases 
published inl 12015 on the websites of ScienceDaily, TechTimes, NaturalNews, 
DoctorsHealthPress, MedicineNews, UKExpress, and PharmacyLearningNetwork. Those articles, 
which do not mention the Petitioner, report on the recent publication of his American Journal of 
jhysiolof article, containing the findings of th~ f,niversity research team regarding the risk 
o as a preventative measure against I disease given their I I 
cell function. The Petitioner did not show that such limited media coverage indicates an original 
contribution of major significance in the field. For example, the evidence did not indicate that his 
research and findings resulted in widespread coverage and interest. 
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. Considered together, 
the evidence consisting of the citations to the Petitioner's published findings, the citation statistics, 
and the reference letters from his colleagues and other experts, establishes that the Petitioner's 
9 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9; see also Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 134-135 (D.D.C. 
2013) (upholding a finding that a ballroom dancer had not met this criterion because she did not corroborate her impact in 
the field as a whole). 
10 Although we discuss a sample a11icle, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
6 
published data and findings have been relied upon by others in their own research. It does not 
demonstrate that the Petitioner has made an original contribution of major significance in his field. 
Therefore, he has not met this criterion. 
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 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 is indicative of 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 section203(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 )(1 )(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. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered 
as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7