dismissed EB-1A Case: Biomedical Sciences

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 13476972 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAR . 2, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a research assistant professor, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary 
ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C . § 1153(b)(l)(A). 
This first preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who can demonstrate their 
extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have 
been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition concluding that the record does not 
establish, as required, that the Petitioner meets at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria for this 
classification. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
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 conclude that the Petitioner has 
not met this burden. Accordingly, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l) 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 pet1t10ner 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 that 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 Petitioner is current! ed as an assistant research professor at the ~I------~ 
L...--------r-------,___JUniversity. He received his bachelor's degree in biomedical 
sciences from University in 2004 and his doctor of philosophy from I I 
~-------~Veterinary College in the I I in 2011. Fallowing completion of 
study, he worked as a post-doctoral fellow at the University ofl I 
hool of Dentistry from 2011 to 2013, and as a senior post-doctoral fellow at the University 
s Centre of OrthopaediF and Trauma Research in I I from 2013 until 2017 Ibj 
Petitioner's research focuses on thel '---------------------------' bone formation and bone health. 
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 claims to meet four of the regulatory criteria, 
summarized below: 
• (iii), Published materials in professional publications or major media; 
• (iv), Participating as a judge of the work of others; 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance; and 
• (vi), Authorship of scholarly articles. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner met two of these criteria, relating to judging the work of 
others and authorship of scholarly articles. The record supports these conclusions as it reflects that 
the Petitioner has peer reviewed manuscripts submitted for publication to professional journals 
including Frontiers in Endocrinology, iScience, and Bone, thus satisfying the judging criterion at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(iv). He has also authored scholarly articles in professional publications including 
PLOS One, Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, Biotechniques, and others. 
2 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the Director erred in determining that he did not provide 
evidence satisfying the two remaining claimed criteria, discussed below. After reviewing all the 
evidence, we conclude that the Petitioner has not met the initial evidence requirements for this 
classification. 
Published material about the individual in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the individual's work in the field.for which class[fication 
is sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and 
any necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
In support of this criterion, the Petitioner offered his Google Scholar citation history and submitted 
copies of six articles from scientific journals in which the authors cited to one of the Petitioner's 
published articles. The Petitioner explained that in the field of scientific research "articles are rarely 
written about a scientist or his or her work." 
The Director acknowledged the submitted evidence but determined that citations to the Petitioner's 
work do not satisfy this criterion because they are not published material "about" the Petitioner. On 
appeal, the Petitioner reiterates that "in scientific research, articles are not written solely about a 
scientist or his or her work" and suggests that articles that cite to his work should therefore be sufficient 
to meet this criterion, noting that some of the articles directly reference him by name. 
The Petitioner's claim is not persuasive. As noted by the Director, the published material must be 
"about" the individual, meaning that both the Petitioner and his work should be the focus of an article 
in order for it to satisfy all elements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Here, the published 
materials submitted are about the research studies performed by the articles' authors. They are not 
about the Petitioner, nor are they about the dozens of other researchers whose work is also cited by 
the same authors. Although the Petitioner claims that articles about scientists are "rarely written," he 
is not exempted from his burden to establish that the submitted evidence meets each element of the 
regulatory criterion. Here, the evidence does not meet this burden. 
Evidence of the individual's original scientific, 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 the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner must establish that not only 
has he made original contributions but that they have been of major significance in the field. 1 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. The record reflects that the Petitioner submitted evidence of his publications 
and conference presentations, his citation history, copies of six articles that cite his work, and nine 
recommendation letters from colleagues, former colleagues and other scientists who discuss his 
research and standing in the field. 2 
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 ADJJ-14 8-9 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html (finding 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 While we do not discuss every letter individually in this decision, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
3 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the previously submitted recommendation letters "explain in 
great detail the multiple original, significant contributions [he] has made in the field of musculoskeletal 
systems and I t' and, when considered with evidence of his publications, presentations and 
citations, are sufficient to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he satisfies this criterion. 
Specifically, he states that his journal articles and conference presentations provide evidence of his 
original contributions, while the expert letters explain their significance, and his Google Scholar 
citation report confirms that significance. 3 
The Petitioner highlights five original scientific contributions in his appellate brief: which we will 
discuss in tum below. 
First, the Petitioner emphasizes that he was "the first scientist to discover I.__ ______ ___. 
The record reflects 
that he published four articles based on his graduate research in this area, most notably an article 
published in PloS One in 2012 that had been cited 56 times at the time of filing. A letter from D I I Executive Director at the.__ ______ ---;:=====::;---- states that 
"this novel work is of articular im ortance, as defects in skeletal! I have been shown to 
result in a and subse uen~ f, a "major concern due 
to the agilg poplulation of the US.".__ _______ _,, who co-supervised the Petitioner's Ph.D. 
project at Veterinary College, explains that "identifying the regulatory mechanisms that govern 
I p is essential for the development of new therapeutics to maintain bone mass and 
structure." He also notes that the Petitioner presented his graduate research work at thel I I I annual meetings, where he received awards for best poster presentation and best scientific 
abstract. 
The publication and presentation of the Petitioner's research in this area establish the originality of the 
work, and we acknowledge that his research relates to understandingc::J diseases that impact many 
people as they age. The letters, however, are insufficient to confirm that the impact or influence of 
the Petitioner's research contributions in this field has risen to the level of "major significance." For 
example, '-------~ letter suggests that the Petitioner's work resulted in incremental 
advancements in researchers' understanding of .__ _________________ __.but he 
does not explain its remarkable impact on either farther research or advancements in the field, or 
indicate whether or how it has been essential to the development of "new therapeutics." A letter from 
, who also supervised the Petitioner's graduate research atl I Veterinary '----------~ College, notes that his PloS One article has been cited over 50 times and states that "the high level of 
interest in his work demonstrates the importance of these findings." However, the fact that the 
Petitioner has published articles that other researchers have referenced is not, by itself: indicative of a 
contribution of major significance. Without any additional context or comparative data, we cannot 
determine that 50 or more citations would reflect such significance in the Petitioner's field. 
3 The Petitioner listed 21 peer-reviewed articles in his cover letter, and we note that several of the letters mention his '"more 
than 20 articles." The submitted Google Scholar profile shows that he has been the author of approximately 50 
publications, with approximately half of those having at least one citation. According to Google Scholar, nearly half of 
his cumulative citations were attributed to two review articles co-authored by him rather than to aiticles that described his 
original research. Citations to individual articles will be discussed in this section. 
4 
The Petitioner highlights another research study in which he 'I I 
factors otj I the regulation of a kidne re ulating factor made byl I 
the effects of muscle secreted factors on differentiation, and gene profiling of the 
' He states that his work in this area '-----------------------------' "was so significant that he published an article about it," referring to an article that appeared in 
Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology in 2015. He emphasizes that the article had been cited 74 
times as of the date of filing this petition, as evidence that "many others in the field found the work 
compelling and important." While we note that citation rates provide evidence of discussion of the 
Petitioner's work in the field, they do not, by themselves, provide sufficient context to determine the 
nature of that discussion or the impact of his work on the field. That context must be provided by 
other evidence in the record. Here, none of the submitted recommendation letters discuss the 
Petitioner's research in this area and he does not farther explain how his research contribution has 
influenced or impacted the field. 
The third contribution the Petitioner describes in his brief relates to his identification of "a novel 
mech~nism by whic .__ ___ __, ____________________ __,' In her letter, 
!explains that while is "one of the most effective treatments currently available for 
.__in_d_u_c-in_g __ ...,I formation," its "mechanism of action is still not folly known." She states that the 
Petitioner's "identification of the activation ofthd I 
I I has important therapeutic implications for disease~ such~~~ ~ I" but she do~s not 
elaborate as to how the Petitioner's research contribution has had a remarkable impact on farther 
research or on the therapeutic use o±LJ 
The record reflects that the Petitioner ublished a a er titled 
.__ ________ _.' in PloS One in 2015 which had garnered 24 citations at the time the petition 
was filed. The Petitioner also provided evidef ce that this paper was one of 108 puh)icatioos cited in 
a 2018 review article b~ ~titled_ ~ (JBMR 
Plus). I I summarizes the research in this area over the last three decades, noting that many 
groups ofresearchers (includin the Petitioner's have "illuminated many of the cellular and molecular 
mechanisms" through whic .__ ____________ _. The author concludes that a more 
thorough understanding of these mechanisms "will be necessary to design new and improved future 
I I treatments." The Petitioner argues that the evidence demonstrates that his research has 
brought the field "one step closer for finding therapies for diseases such asl t' While the 
record supports a conclusion that the Petitioner made an original contribution through the publication 
of his paper, it does not demonstrate that this contribution is one that has been recognized for its major 
significance in the field. 
The two remainin ori inal contributions the Petitioner describes relate to his develo ment and 
publication of The 
Petitioner ex lains that he 
----~----~~......,,........,~~- .......... ~-~----" The record reflects that the Petitioner 
published this research in Calc[fied Tissue International in 2014 and that his article had been cited 56 
times when this petition was filed. I lstates that this technique "has provided an abundant 
source of cells for studying I" and refers to scientists who relied on this technique to study 
I In their own published research. I ~ Professor of Orthopaedic 
5 
Research at University ofl I where the Petitioner developed the technique, states that the 
'-------------.==-=m=-o-=-d::.e:...:l:...::.;-for studying disorders ofl I was important because 
most studies investigating! I biology have used mouse cells and cell lines, "which do not 
adequately represent what occurs in human tissues." He states that the Petitioner's cell model has 
become a "standard technique" in his laboratory. 
Finally, the Petitioner explains that he was the first scientist to develop a technique to extract! I 
.__ _____________ ____.I samples, noting tha~ 0 k had previously been 
extracted from rodent bones or other transformed cell lines. He states that this contribution is 
significant because '------------------~ relevant for human drug therapies, 
which will allow other researchers to advance their own research in the field to find effective thera 1es 
foj !diseases." He published his research, .__ __________________ ____. 
in Bone in 2016 and the record reflects that it had been cited 15 times as of the date of filing. 
Several of the recommendation letters highlight these contributions. I I who co-
authored the paper, states that the technique will "farther the study of diseases such as I I 
and "enable researchers to stud~ I in a model that is much 
~m-o-re-cl-in_i_c-al-ly-re~levant." I l states that the Petitioner's cell model techniques "have had a 
major impact in the field of1 I biology" noting thatll "are notoriously difficult 
cells to isolate from I" He farther state~ell culture models "have 
advanced not only [the Petitioner's] own research but also that of otherl I researchers" 
and identifies three articles that relied on the Petitioner's cell model techniques.I I, another 
co-author of the Petitioner's Bone article, confirms that the Petitioner was "the first researcher to 
successfully.__ ____________ ~' and states that "[t]his techni~ue is now used by 
other researchers in my laboratory, as well as scientists in the UK and Europe." [ lalso 
notes the use of this technique in laboratories located in Australia, Europe and Asia and states that 
"[t]his clearly demonstrates the wide-reaching impact of [the Petitioner's research] and its national 
and international importance." Finally,.__ _______ ____. ofj I University School of 
Medicine, states that both of the techniques described above "have become essential and widely used 
tools within thel ~ field, as evidenced by the numerous publications in which these 
techniques were used." 
The letters confirm the originality of the Petitioner's work in developing the two I I cell model 
techniques discussed above. While the testimonial evidence corroborates the Petitioner's claim that 
these techniques represented improvements to existing methods of'----~---~~~---=-' 
I I, statements about the widespread implementation of these techniques appear to be based 
solely on the number of articles that cite to the Petitioner's 2016 article published in Bone (15 citations) 
and 2014 article published in Calc[fied Tissue International (56 citations). Again, we emphasize that 
citation rates provide evidence of discussion of the Petitioner's work in the field. They do not, by 
themselves, provide sufficient context to determine the nature of that discussion or the impact of his 
work on the field to meet this criterion. Further, the Petitioner has not presented sufficient evidence 
showing that the citation frequency noted confirms that his work has provoked widespread 
commentary or received notice from others in the field at a level consistent with "contributions of 
major significance in the field." For example, he did not demonstrate that these citations are unusually 
high in his field or how they compare to other articles that the field views as having been majorly 
significant. 
6 
The submitted articles citing to the Petitioner's techniques indicate that researchers in his field are 
continually investigating new and more efficient methods for.__ _________ __, and that the 
Petitioner's research has contributed to these advancements. For example, a 2019 article b 
et al. (International Journal of Molecular Science) compares the Petitioner's.__..--------
described in his 2016 Bone article with two other methods for obtaining.__ ___ _. through 
differentiation of.__ ______ __, The authors describe the Petitioner's method as "not very 
efficient" because the process is "very time consuming and only a few cells are obtained." The record 
reflects that other studies o~.__ __ ___.~ have relied on the Petitioner's techniques to obtain cells for 
research, but its overall impact or influence on research in the field has not been demonstrated. 
While the record, including the reference letters, establishes that the Petitioner's research has value 
and has received some attention in the field, it is insufficient to confirm that the impact or influence 
of his work has risen to the level of "major significance" in the field. He has not submitted sufficient 
evidence demonstrating that his research has provoked widespread commentary or that it has received 
notice from others at a level indicative of its "major significance" in the field, as required under the 
criterion. Accordingly, based on the relevant documents in the record, the Petitioner has not shown, 
by a preponderance of the evidence, that he has made original contributions of major significance in 
the field. 
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). 
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