dismissed EB-1A Case: Biomedical Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 12186425 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : DEC . 31, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a director of program management for a biomedical science company , 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 concluded that, although the record established that the Petitioner satisfied the initial 
evidentiary requirements for this classification, he did not establish, as required, that he has sustained 
national or international acclaim and is among that small percentage who have risen to the very top of 
his field . The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act , 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, the Petitioner has not met that burden. 
Accordingly, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to aliens 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 
international recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that 
is, a major, internationally recognized award). If the 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). 
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 record reflects that the Petitioner is employed as a Director, Program Management for ~I--~ 
a multinational biosciences company, where he is responsible for leading 
._t-he-d-ev_e_lo_p_m-en_t_o_f-th_e_c_o_m_p_a....,ny' s next generation! !instrumentation. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
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). The Petitioner initially claimed to have met six criteria, summarized 
below: 
• (i), Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards; 
• (iv), Participation as a judge of the work of others; 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance; 
• (vi), Authorship of scholarly articles; 
• (viii), Leading or critical roles for organizations with a distinguished reputation; and 
• (ix), High salary or other significantly high remuneration in relation to others. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner met three of the criteria by providing evidence that he has 
judged the work of others, authored scholarly articles in professional publications, and performed in a 
leading or critical role for an organization that enjoys a distinguished reputation. The record supports 
these determinations based on evidence that the Petitioner has published his research in journals and 
conference proceedings and peer reviewed manuscripts for Journal of Orthopaedics and The 
International Journal of Health, Wellness and Society, thus satisfying the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi). The record also demonstrates that the Petitioner has held leading or critical 
2 
roles with his current employerc=J and includes evidence of this company's distinguished reputation 
in its industry. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
On appeal, the Petitioner contests the Director's determination that he did not satisfy the criteria related 
to original contributions of major significance and high salary or other remuneration. Because the 
Petitioner has demonstrated that he satisfies three criteria, we will evaluate the totality of the evidence, 
including evidence submitted in support of those two criteria, in the context of the final merits 
determination below. 
B. 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); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-
20.1 
The Petitioner holds a bachelor of engineering in biotechnology fro, I University and received 
his master of science in bioengineering from University I where he served as a graduate 
research assistant in the~------------------------~from 2006 
to 2008. The record reflects that the Petitioner has more than~ears of progressive experience in 
product development in the bioJedical field. Prior to joiningLJ in December 2015, the Petitioner 
worked as a producj enginej fo I, as a senior development engllleer for I I and as a 
project manager for 
As mentioned above, the Petitioner judged others within his field, authored scholarly articles, and 
performed in a leading role. We have also considered evidence related to an award he receiv~r his 
work atD his contributions to the field, and his salary and remuneration package withl_J The 
record, however, does not demonstrate that his achievements reflect a "career of acclaimed work in 
the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). 
Relating to the Petitioner's service as a judge of the work of others, 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 1121-22.2 The record 
reflects that, at the time of filing, the Petitioner had reviewed 18 scholarly articles submitted to Journal 
1 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 4 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html (stating that USCTS officers should 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 for the immigrant classification). 
2 Id. at 13 (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 
of Orthopaedics and The International Journal of Health, Wellness and Society. Participating as a 
peer reviewer does not automatically demonstrate that an individual has extraordinary ability and 
sustained national or international acclaim. In evaluating this evidence in the final merits 
determination, the Director acknowledged that the Petitioner had reviewed 18 manuscripts for these 
two journals inl land I 12019. 3 The Director determined that because invitations to 
peer review the work of others can be routine in the Petitioner's field, this evidence alone did not 
demonstrate that he is at the top of the field or otherwise establish his sustained national or 
international acclaim. Specifically, the Director noted a lack of evidence that would set the Petitioner 
apart from others in the field, such as evidence that he had reviewed "an unusually large number of 
articles, received independent requests for a substantial number of journals, or served in an editorial 
position for a distinguished journal." On appeal the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not cite any 
authority for these factors and notes that they appear to have been applied arbitrarily. 
While the Director provided examples of judging experience that may be indicative of an individual's 
national or international acclaim, the decision does not indicate that he arbitrarily imposed novel 
requirements. Rather, the Director's observation highlights the fact that not all peer review activities 
are equally indicative of an individual's standing in the field. The Petitioner emphasizes that his 
completion of 18 reviews in a period of less thanl I is a substantial volume, but we cannot 
determine to what extent this level of activity is indicative of his national or international acclaim or 
how his experience compares to the peer review activities of individuals at the top of the field. It is 
undisputed that these two journals have frequently invited him to review articles sincel ~019; 
the record does not reflect, however, that he has a consistent history of participating as a peer reviewer 
that would indicate sustained acclaim. 
The Petitioner further asserts that the Director failed to weigh evidence related to the reputation of the 
journals and their standards for identifying reviewers. With respect to the Journal of Orthopaedics, 
the Petitioner asserts that it is "the leading journal of orthopedics and enjoys an international 
readership." The Petitioner provided limited information about this journal from its publisher's 
website indicating that it is "[a]n official publication of the Prof. PK Surendran Memorial Educational 
Foundation and Indo Korean Orthopaedic Foundation" which "aims to be a leading journal in 
orthopaedics." The evidence does not support the Petitioner's claim that Journal of Orthopaedics, 
which indicates a Cite Score ( average citation per article) of 1.16, is the "leading journal" in this field. 
We acknowledge that the Petitioner submitted a letter from the Journal of Orthopaedics' chief editor, 
who states that the journal requires its peer reviewers to be "experts with renowned international 
reputation in their own fields" who are "aware of the most updated technological and theoretical 
developments." The correspondence the Petitioner received from this journal's editor indicate that he 
was invited to review specific articles because they "fall within [his] expertise and interest" and 
requested that he suggest alternate reviewers for articles that he declines. This evidence suggests that 
the journal selects peer reviewers based on interest and subject matter expertise, a considerably lower 
threshold than sustained national or international acclaim or the "renowned international reputation" 
referenced in the editor's letter, a term which the editor did not define. 
3 On appeal, the Petitioner asserts th~ the Director erred by stating that all his journal-related peer review activities took 
place between I I 2019 and I 2019. The record reflects that his earliest review was completed on 
I 12019, and that he continued to review articles for the two referenced journals subsequent to the filing of the 
petition on December 5, 2019. 
4 
Regarding the Petitioner's peer review activities for The International Journal of Health, Wellness 
and Society, he submitted information from the publisher's website, which, on the subject of peer 
review, states that the publisher relies on a reciprocity system whereby any author who submits an 
article for publication will be assigned three manuscripts to review for their peers, based on subject 
matter and disciplinary expertise. The evidence does not establish this journal's rankings or reputation 
in the field, nor does it demonstrate that the publisher invites only those reviewers who have achieved 
national or international acclaim. Overall, while we acknowledge the significant volume of recent 
requests the Petitioner has received to review manuscripts for two journals, the evidence does not 
establish that the scope of these peer review activities reflects or resulted in his sustained acclaim, or 
that the nature of the peer review work he is performing is reserved for the small percentage at the 
very top of the field. 
The Petitioner further contends that the Director overlooked and did not weigh evidence demonstrating 
that he had judged the work of others while serving on a due diligence team leading up toDi_ 
acquisition ofl I in 2016. O's Vice President of Research and Developmen1LJ 
I I confirms that he personally invited the Petitioner to represent the program management 
function on the teaj, bred on his accomplishments and subject matter expertise. He notes that "only 
the top talent within was selected for this process." We agree withl Is statement that this 
was "a critical assignment a0," and acknowledge that this evidence supports our determination that 
the Petitioner has held leading or critical roles for his current employer. However, the record does not 
establish that his participation on the due diligence team resulted in or reflects his sustained 
international acclaim in the field, was recognized outside of0 s organization, or places him among 
that small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
Likewise, publication of a petitioner's research does not automatically place one at the top of the field. 
Here, the Director acknowledged that the Petitioner established that he published a total of nine articles 
and conference papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals but emphasized that the Petitioner did not 
submit a citation history for his published work. As authoring scholarly articles is often inherent to 
the work of scientists and researchers, the citation history or other evidence of the influence of one's 
articles can be an indicator to determine the impact and recognition that their work has had on the field 
and whether such influence has been sustained. For example, numerous independent citations for an 
article authored by the Petitioner may provide solid evidence that his work has been recognized and 
that other researchers have been influenced by his work. Such an analysis at the final merits 
determination stage is appropriate pursuant to Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1122. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director improperly relied solely on the Petitioner's citation 
count in evaluating whether his original contributions are of major significance in the field. However, 
the Director noted the absence of the Petitioner's citation history in evaluating evidence related to his 
published scholarly articles and whether his publication record 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). A review of the decision reflects that the Director's evaluation of the Petitioner's original 
contributions, which we will discuss below, included the Petitioner's published research, search results 
from Google Scholar demonstrating that researchers have referenced products he developed with0 
and other employers, and letters of recommendation. 
5 
In support of the a eal the Petitioner submits a screenshot from Goo le Scholar reflectin that his 
2008 article 
,__ ______________ __, had been cited by others 14 times as of April 2020. The 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that this rate of citation for one article demonstrates attention from his 
field at a level consistent with being among small percentage at the very top of that field. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). However, we acknowledge that all but one of the Petitioner's scholarly articles were 
published more than 10 years prior to the filing of the petition, and he does not rely heavily on these 
publications to support his extraordinary ability claim. As discussed further below, the Petitioner has 
not been employed in academic or research roles, but rather asserts that he has built his reputation in 
the field through product development positions in the biomedical engineering industry. 
As it relates to the Petitioner's service in a leading role, the record contains numerous letters of 
recommendation discussing his product development work for Oand his prior employers. These 
letters demonstrate the Petitioner's expertise in medical technology innovation and his work for 
companies that enjoy a distinguished reputation in his field. While the Director acknowledged 
evidence demonstrating his leading or critical role withD he found that the record lacked evidence 
that such role is indicative of, or resulted in, his sustained national or international acclaim. 
The letters discussing the Petitioner's roles atO describe the company's reputation and activities, 
his areas of responsibility, and the importance of the products developed or under development, but 
as noted by the Director, do not focus on an acclaim or recognition he has received outside of the 
com an as a result of his critical roles. Vice President and General Manager of 
~----------------~ fo states that the Petitioner was initially "chosen to 
lead a cross-functional team of 45 researchers and other staff with the mission to direct the timely 
development of ourl I product," "drove its successful commercialization" and reduced 
the product development lifecycle by 25%. As discussed further below, the record also demonstrates 
that he received a significant company award for his contributions to this product, which further 
supports the critical nature of his role. 
~------- explains that, as a result of his success with the I I urlduct, the 
Petitioner was promoted to Director, Program Management forOs $125 millionlprogram, 
which requires him to direct a team of 86 managers and engineers to lead the company's next-
generation,__ _________ ~instrumentation, expected to be f~launched in 2022.D 
I I states that the Petitioner "falls within the top 1 % of all employees atLJ' based on his position 
and responsibilities in the organization, noting that he is one of the youngest scientists to hold a 
"Director" title. 
Finally, as noted above, the Petitioner's appointment to a due diligence team in preparation for the 
acquisition of another biomedical company provides further evidence of his critical role within8 
The Petitioner's value to the company has been demonstrably evidenced by the letters from . 
However, the record does not establish how his contributions and achievements within the company 
have been recognized in the industry at large or indicate that he has received individual acclaim for 
them. We cannot determine that his employer's opinion that he is one of the top employees in the 
company places him among "that small percentage who [has] risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor." See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). Nor does the evidence establish that his work atOto date 
has resulted in the Petitioner becoming an acclaimed figure in his field. 
6 
With regard to his previous employment with other companies in the biomedical devices industry, the 
record shows that the Petitioner has consistently developed his skills in product development and 
commercialization and steadily progressed to increasing levels i°f resp
1
nsibility during his career. 
~-----~I a senior director of research and development at states that he managed the 
Petitioner's work from 2013 to 2015 when he served as a senior project manager responsible for 
development, managing and launching I ts first I I product 
portfolio. He refers to the Petitioner's "critical leadership role" in overseeing the introduction of the 
company's.__ _______ __. system and notes that this product is still used by I I 
surgeons, but does not indicate how the Petitioner's project manager position withl I garnered 
him acclaim outside the company. 
The Petitioner also provided a letter froml l Vice President Engineering atl~--~ 
who previously directed the Petitioner during his tenure as a senior develo ment en ineer at 
from 2012 to 2013. He discusses the Petitioner's work with ;.,;;..;..c..c.=.;;.;;;_.;;..._;..;_;;_~....;.;_;=----------~ 
p , which is used to close varicose veins using L---~-~----r----.-----11, noting that the 
Petitioner introduced "critical design improvements" that distinguished,__ __ ~s product from those 
of its competitors, and emphasizing that the device is still widely used in the medical industry, even 
afterl Is acquisition b another com an . Finall , a letter froml l who managed 
the Petitioner's work at discusses the Petitioner's work as a product 
engineer withl lhetween 2008 and 2012. specifically discusses his contributions to 
the design and development of the~~----~ System and .----'--------.-----.--------1 
System, noting that both of these products are still offered by 
~ I however, addresses how the Petitioner's en~g..,...in_e_e-ri,-n_g_p_o_s....,.it....,.io~ns with and 
LJ were leading or critical to these organizations as a whole, nor did they provide details of how 
the Petitioner achieved national or international acclaim based on his product contributions. 
Apart from the letters from the Petitioner's current and prior managers, the record lacks other 
independent evidence, such as news articles or other relevant materials, demonstrating that the 
biomedical device field has widely recognized the Petitioner's roles or contributions to his employers 
in a manner that evidences a "career of acclaimed work." The Petitioner's talents and his successes 
to date have garnered him employment opportunities with majo~ers in the industry and increasing 
leadership responsibilities as evidenced by his current role witlL_J However, the evidence does not 
show that his roles and achievements at these companies are at a level that places him among "that 
small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
Beyond the three criteria that the Petitioner has satisfied, we have considered additional documentation 
in the record in order to determine whether the totality of the evidence demonstrates eligibility. With 
respect to his receipt of awards, the record reflects thatDrecognized the Petitioner by awarding him 
the company's! I Award in 2017, the "highest distinction and honor" in recognition for 
his leadership of the development its I I product. While the evidence demonstrates that 
the award is a significant honor within the company, given to only a small number of awardees out of 
60,000 employees worldwide, it does not reflect that it is a national or internationally recognized award 
in the field as a whole, or that the Petitioner garnered recognition for this award that extended beyond 
his employer. While recognition of this nature within a large multinational corporation is certainly a 
significant achievement, the record has not shown the Petitioner's receipt of the award established or 
contributed to his sustained national or international acclaim in the field. 
7 
As it relates to his original contributions, the Petitioner has placed particular emphasis on his product 
development activities, emphasizing that surgical devices and other biomedical products he developed 
for his employers over the course of his career are in widespread use and have been of major 
significance in the medical and research fields. On appeal, he specifically references the following 
devices: im lant roducts tern and I I System) 
developed at 1.r-----------LJ; the .__----.======-' peripheral vasculuir!........l,<li.l.!.!..l.<..li...!......J.L!.l.!.!J.l.il<.J._, 
develo ed at and im lant s stems -
,__~----~~ (sold by ,__ ____________ __,(sold 
by.__ _____ _, The Petitioner emphasized that these devices are in widespread use and have 
been frequently mentioned in published studies, with "thousands of citations by many different 
researchers around the globe." 
With respect to the products developed during his tenure as a product engineer ac==] I Is 
letter states that the Petitioner "designed and developed" th~ I System, which he 
describes as "a minimally invasivd I alternative tq I screws." I lstates that "the 
I klesign concept and finished product were entire!: the result of [the Petitioner's] own research 
and development." The record includes al JScrew System "Surgical Technique Guide" 
published b~ lin 2010 but does not contain any additional evidence related to this product or the 
Petitioner's role in its development. As a result, we are unable to determine whether the device was 
regarded as novel or original at the time of its introduction, whether or how it impacted the field of 
biomedical technology, or whether and to what extent the Petitioner garnered acclaim or recognition 
as a result of his work on its development. 
.__ ___ _.I also briefly mentions I ~ systems as a product in which the Petitioner "was 
directly and heavily involved" while employed at~ and notes that this product, "which rovides 
robust,__ _____ __. in the I t' continues to be offered br-"-'-------.-----' 
following its acquisition ofl I The Petitioner emphasizes in his brief that the,__ ___ _,system 
is "one of the top biomedical device products sold by I ~ and "used by thousands of 
hospitals" to treatl I deformities. The record contains evidence demonstrating that I I I I still markets this product and has presented clinical data on its performance at industry 
conferences, evidence that other independent researchers have studied the product's clinical 
performance, and evidence that the product has received a 2015 ~--------------' Award. 
However, I ts letter lacks probative details describing the Petitioner's specific role in the 
development of the product. For example, it is unclear if1 I or any of its components are 
patented, and if so, whether the Petitioner is listed as an inventor. The Petitioner's detailed curriculum 
vitae mentions only that he was "[r]esponsible for 6 cadaveric studies for I I,' a I I I I device at various research labs," with duties that included "developing the protocol, conducting 
testing and writing abstracts." Even if we could determine based on the submitted evidence that he 
was significantly involved in the development ofl I system, the record lacks evidence that 
the Petitioner received any recognition in the field as a result of his contributions to the product. The 
nature of a product engineer's duties is to contribute to the development or improvement of new or 
existing products. We cannot determine that any engineer who works on successful products that 
achieve widespread use is automatically among the small percentage at the very top of the field. In 
8 
order to establish eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability, the Petitioner must also provide 
evidence that his product development work resulted in his sustained national or international acclaim. 
We have also considered evidence related to the Petitioner's work on the 
employed by . Submitted roduct details indicate that 
varicose vein therapy that 
roduct while 
IS a 
The evidence does not establish that the Petitioner assigned 
any patents to .__ __ _.or that he was involved in the initial development of the roduct, which pre-
dates his employment with the company§4 his manager at indicates that the 
Petitioner "was responsible for refining s breakthrough roduct," by 
introducing design improvements to its carrying out studies to optimiz .__ _ _. delivery, 
developing technical drawings for new components, establishing methodologies for improvements, 
and creating manufacturing processes for some of its components and subassemblies. 
The appellate brief emphasizes that thel I device "has been used by over two million 
patients worldwide in over 100 countries" and states that "[t]he significance of the Petitioner's impact 
with this contribution can also be measured by the fact there are already 250+ published clinical studies 
that showcase its widespread use and application." The record includes search results for 
I I from Golgle Stolar as evidence that researchers continue to study the efficacy of 
I land other reatments. The widespread use of the product is evident; however, the 
record lacks evidence that the product refinements to which the Petitioner contributed during his time 
a~ !garnered him recognition or acclaim in the field. 
The remainin biomedical devices referenced in the Petitioner's appellate brie;;..;;f;_. a=r;..;:.e--'t=h~ ____ ..., 
-----..-----~system currently sold by nd the 
System, described as "one of the top products sold by.__ _____ _. 
._c_o_--d1-.r-ec_t_or___,ofl lat University I I indicates that he was the Petitioner's master's thesis 
advisor and supervised his work as a graduate research assistant. He explains that the Petitioner 
"undertook critical industry studies to further the development of major medical device products for 
world-class 
1
compani
1
s," and that two of the products included in his studies werel land 
I I further states that the Petitioner performed "critical work to further the successful 
development" of these products by performing scientific studies such as in vitro biomechanical 
evaluations and finite element analysis. The record supports a determination that these products 
achieved widespread use but does not sufficiently explain or document that either product is 
attributable to the Petitioner as a result of the studies he performed as a graduate student and researcher 
atl I Nor does the record establish that he garnered acclaim in the field based on these 
activities. It appears that the Petitioner's 2008 article mentioned above relates to the research studies 
discussed byl I but as noted, it has been cited only 14 times as of 2020 and has not generated 
widespread commentary in the field. 
We have also considered evidence related to the Petitioner's contributions to thel I and 
products at D With respect to I l the evidence demonstrates '-----------' that the Petitioner was hired as a senior program manager to supervise a team of 45 people and to 
4 A '--------~' publication submitted in support of the petition cites to a 2009 study of the product's clinical 
performance. The Petitioner joined! hn 2012. 
9 
"drive the timel development and successful commercialization of the product" which, according to 
a letter from has resulted in $50 million in annual revenues. The record demonstrates that 
has over 750 placements in commercial, research and university laboratories worldwide 
.__an_d_a_p_r-in_t_o_u~t from Google Scholar indicates that scientists are usin~ I as a tool in their 
research. The record also reflects that the Petitioner received recognition within the company for his 
work, including a promotion to his current Director, Program Management position, an invitation to a 
due diligence team related toDs acquisition of.__ ______ ~ and receipt of a I I 
Award in 2017. However, the record contains little evidence that the Petitioner has garnered 
recognition outside of the company as a result of his contributions to ~I-----~ 
A letter from Head of.__ _______ ~ at 
L.,.,.~~-~----r---....-~...J 
Laborato '----~ indicates that he has collaborated directly with the et1t10ner ue to s ro e 
in carrying out early testing o±O s I I products. He describe .__ ____ _. as "novel 
technology" and explains that the machine's capabilities have increased the pace of research atl I 
and provided data that is key to its published papers. also discusses! l's role in the 
beta phase o~ Is development, noting that has abilities that are "absolutely unique with 
no competition worldwide." He states that.__ _ ___. is already carrying out productive scientific 
research utilizing! l although it is not expected to be launched to the general public until 2022. 
He states that he considers both of these I I products to be original contributions of major 
significance and that he regards the Petitioner as a "gifted scientist on a global scale." 
However, all of the letters submitted in support of the petition are from individuals who directly 
worked with the Petitioner either as his manager or his collaborator; there is insufficient evidence that 
the Petitioner has achieved sustained national or international acclaim in the field as a result of his 
contributions to his employers' products. The letters do not provide sufficient information and 
explanation, nor does the record include sufficient corroborating evidence, to show that the Petitioner 
is regarded as being among that small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C .F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). 
The Petitioner also claims that his "extraordinary ability is reflected in his annual compensation 
package," which includes his base salary of$188,379, incentive bonuses and stock options. The record 
reflects that he received total compensation of $258,570 in 2018 and $288,457 in 2019. The Petitioner 
provided data from the Department of Labor's Foreign Labor Certification (FLC) Data Center 
indicating that base salaries for his occupation and geographic areal I California) are $188,510 
at Level 3 and $219,752 at the Level 4 or "folly competent" level. The Director acknowledged that 
his base salary is competitive but found insufficient evidence to establish that he earns a high salary 
or other significantly high remuneration in relation to others. While the Petitioner argues that his total 
compensation is considerably higher that the figure reported by the FLC resource, we note that the 
Petitioner did not provide supporting evidence that would allow a comparison between his total 
remuneration and that of other similarly employed workers in his geographic area. Therefore, the 
evidence does not establish that he receives total remuneration that is "significantly high" or that his 
earnings are comparable to those of individuals at the very top of the field. 
The record as a whole, including the evidence discussed above, does not establish the Petitioner's 
eligibility for the benefit sought. 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 
10 
top. USCIS has long held that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically 
meet the statutory standards for classification as an individual of "extraordinary ability." Matter of 
Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). While the Petitioner need not establish that 
there is no one more accomplished to qualify for the classification sought, we find the record 
insufficient to demonstrate that he has sustained national or international acclaim and is among the 
small percentage at the top of his field. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
III. CONCLUSION 
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. 
11