dismissed EB-1A Case: Biomedical Software Development

• MATTER OF H-L-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JULY 13, 2017 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a biomedical software developer, seeks classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability in the sciences. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
203(b)(1)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). This first preference classification makes immigrant visas 
available to those who can demonstrate th~ir 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 did not 
establish, as required, that the Petitioner had met at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he satisfies two criteria in addition to the two the Director 
found that he meets. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(1)(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 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 
.
Matter of H-L-
at 8 C.P.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 at 
least three of the ten categories listed at 8 C.P.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. 201 0).1 
This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be determined not by the 
quantity of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we examine "each piece of 
evidence for lielevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and within the context of 
the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true." Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a senior computer scientist at the 
Previously, he was a postdoctoral researcher at and an engineer for companies in 
China. He received his Ph.D. degree from the 
in 2009. The reference letters focus on his accomplishments at 
and The Director concluded that the Petitioner had judged the work of 
others and authored scholarly articles. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), (vi). The record, which contains 
confirmation of the Petitioner's services as a peer reviewer of manuscripts for multiple journals and 
his published articles, supports the Director's determination on those criteria. 
At issue is whether the Petitioner meets athird criterion. On appeal, he maintains that he has also 
made contributions of major significance in the field and performed a leading or critical role for an 
organization or establishment with a distinguished reputation. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), (viii). For 
the reasons discussed below, he has not satisfied either of those criteria. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient(fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The Director concluded that without evidence of citations to the Petitioner's articles or 
documentation of patents, he could not meet this criterion. On appeal, he asserts that his 
contributions are "not manifested via publications or patents," and that the Director erred by not 
considering the reference letters. As we will detail below, however, two of his references do single 
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, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.O. Wash. 2011). 
2 
.
Matter of H-L-
out his articles as reflecting his contributions. Regardless, while a widely cited article can be 
indicative of the influence of that article, influential articles are not the only means of demonstrating 
an impact in the field commensurate with a contribution of major significance. If not relying on 
citations, it remains the Petitioner's burden to satisfy this criterion with other evidence. While we 
agree that reference letters can provide useful information for this criterion, in this case, they do not 
support a finding that the Petitioner has made contributions of major significance in the field of 
biometrics computer programming. 
The Petitioner offered several letters from his colleagues at describing the programs he 
advanced there. an associate professor and director of oncology service informatics 
at the Department of at explains that he recruited the Petitioner after 
he proposed a solution for a problem the research group was facing. According to his 
group developed three major tools due to the Petitioner's assistance making "quick and powerful 
analysis ofbig sets of altered genes to prioritize and underline those of them which are likely cancer 
drivers." 
the director of the at 
provides specific information about the Petitioner's three tools and an additional project. 
First, he "developed and tested a number of important computational methods for building the 
optimal sequencing panels for detection of mutations in cell-free circulated tumor DNA." Second, 
he advanced the' to facilitate cancer-focused analysis of large sets of genes. Third, he 
worked on the ' which "summarizes all available knowledge 
on molecular mechanisms of ovarian cancer to determine major driver alterations." Finally, his 
laboratory "began non-invasive prenatal testing -
a new type of genetic test that screens for birth 
defects and inherited diseases by sequencing a baby's DNA that is naturally found in the mother's 
blood." For this last project, the Petitioner resolved a memory overload problem by "proposing a 
new adaptive parallel algorithm." 
co-founder and co-director of the 
discusses his collaboration with the Petitioner and 
explains the importance of diagnosing cancer from tumor DNA in the blood and the 
difficulties caused by the individualiz~d spectrum of DNA mutations for each malignancy. He 
affirms that the Petitioner's models are currently being developed and tested. 
dean of explains the Petitioner 's work on the This 
product "visualizes gene interaction networks in [the] context of major cancer pathways." In 
developing this tool, the Petitioner "solved a number of complicated problems," such as integrating 
databasys and constructing gene networks and meta-networks, by using his \'specialized expertise in 
order to devise unique· software solutions." 
director of_ at confirms that he is working with 
the Petitioner on the designed to assist clinicians who treat that 
cancer in making therapeutic treatment decisions. He explains that these decisions rest on 
3 
.
Matter of H-L-
identifying which tumor mutations are "drivers" and which are "passengers." The proposed 
diagnostic tool in development would use sophisticated computer algorithms to produce clinically 
useful information. 
With respect to the impact of the Petitioner's work, 
the labs of 
asserts that it has been "appreciated in 
, the 
of and The record includes letters from these institutions and 
the For the reasons discussed below, however, while these references 
confirm the promising and useful nature of the Petitioner's tools, they do not corroborate his impact 
in the field at a level consistent with a contribution of major significance. 
the Petitioner's academic advisor at describes how he 
expanded on results with mass spectrum data. Specifically, the Petitioner "developed a 
method which handles a combination of voice signal processing and machine learning 
simultaneously." characterizes the project as a "major contribution" because of its' 
importance to him and his collaborators, which shows "the great influence [the Petitioner's] work 
has had on his field." That the Petitioner 's academic advisor and his colleagues have utilized the 
Petitioner's tools and algorithms is insufficient to show his wider impact in the field as a whole. 
chair of the Department of Computer Science at 
asserts that the Petitioner's algorithms, which he published and presented, have "drawn significance 
[sic] attention from colleagues around the world due to innovative ideas and results." Where a 
reference specifically contends that published articles or talks 
about certain projects have contributed 
to the field, citations are useful data to corroborate such a statement, although not the only type of 
evidence. The record contains no documentation of citations. Instead, avers that the 
field's interest is evident from the Petitioner 's selection as a guest lecturer internationally. 
does not identify, and the record does not establish, however, the location(s) where the Petitioner has 
been a guest lecturer. Accordingly, letter does not confirm that the Petitioner's 
contributions are of major significance in the field. 
vice-chair of the Departments of at 
discusses her collaboration with the Petitioner on a 
project at She confirms that he created a computational cancer genomic data 
analysis pipeline~ for use in one laboratory at While she characterizes the tool as "very 
effective," she does not explain its wider significance or use in the field. 
a professor at the affirms that the Petitioner contacted him to 
review He professes no prior knowledge of the Petitioner or the tool. 
describes how it is "useful" and "remarkable ," with unique features. He also asserts that the ability 
to create such a tool distinguishes the Petitioner from his peers. He does not, however, suggest that 
the or another institution is considering utilizing the product. 
4 
.
Matter of H-L-
Similarly, a postdoctoral researcher at affirms that he examined the 
Petitioner's tool after receiving his request to do so. does not suggest he 
had previously heard of the Petitioner or He characterizes the tool as "useful," 
"remarkable," "unique," and "flexible." He does not, however, indicate that or any other 
independent laboratory is using the program. 
The only independent letter affirming any utilization of the Petitioner's work is from 
head of the at She recounts that she contacted 
about tool for biological annotation of large sets of genes, who then introduced 
her to the Petitioner. She confirms that reading the Petitioner's articles on algorithms and new 
approaches assisted her with her own research. As in letter, she identifies specific 
aspects of the Petitioner's research that she either utilized or that made her respect his work. As 
noted above, the record contains insufficient evidence . that these articles have garnered any citations. 
does not indicate that she has cited the articles she names in her letter or detail how she 
has otherwise relied upon his work. Finally, she describes his development of several smart phone 
apps that are available at a specified website. She does not provide the sales or download figures for 
these apps and the record does not contain documentation about their usage. 
In summary, the Petitioner has offered letters that favorably appraise his software tools and abilities 
but do not reflect that his contributions are of major significance in the field. While the absence of 
citations does not preclude a favorable finding under this criterion, the record must contain other 
evidence of an influence or impact consistent with a contribution of major significance in the field. 
The Petitioner has submitted a single letter from an independent researcher, who affirms 
her use of his work, and provides some details about the impact of his research. This evidence, 
together with other documentation, however, is insufficient to demonstrate the Petitioner has 
satisfied this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that 
have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
The Director concluded that the letters addressed the Petitioner's role for a department and specific 
projects, but did not demonstrate a leading or critical role for an organization or establishment. On 
appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not sufficiently consider the evidence and 
erroneously applied a federal district court decision involving a table tennis player. In general, a 
leading role is evident from the role, its duties, and how it fits within the overall hierarchy of the 
organization. The record does nqt contain any hierarchical information about including how 
many senior computer scientists it employers and the chain of command. Similarly, the record does 
not verify that the role of a postdoctoral researcher is a leading role for or the 
Department of Computer Science. 
/ 
The remaining question is whether the Petitioner performed a critical role for or 
This type of role should be apparent from an individual's impact on the entity. Regardless 
of whether the decision the Director referenced, Noroozi v. Napolitano, 905 F. Supp. 2d 535, 544-45 
5 
.
Matter of H-L-
(S.D.N.Y. 2012), is persuasive case law, the regulation requires that the Petitioner's role be critical 
for an organization or establishment that has a distinguished reputation. If it is the Petitioner's 
position that his role was critical to a specific department or research team, he must demonstrate that 
the smaller entity, independently of the larger institution, enjoys the requisite reputation. 
The Petitioner initially provided a letter from outlining his role for a 
sponsored project. On appeal, he no longer maintains that this work meets the 
criterion. Not every researcher who contributes to an funded project plays a critical role for the 
organization where the research occurred. The record does not contain sufficient detail explaining 
how the Petitioner's development of algorithms for this project served a critical role for 
or the individual department where he was working. 
affirms that the Petitioner "played a central role in the development of new-generation 
integrative tools bridging together the basic knowledge of cancer genomics with the concrete tasks 
of clinical interpretation of mutations in tumors of particular cancer patients." He singles out 
and the He concludes: "The advances in cancer 
treatment that is making through the creation of tools as described above would not 
have been possible without the critical input" of the Petitioner. As indicates the 
translator is still in development, and as such, its performance unconfirmed, the Petitioner has not 
sufficiently demonstrated his critical role for through his work on that project. We consider 
below. 
The record does not confirm the impact of at The Petitioner offered 
downloaded information from website. One of the posts entitled: 
discusses the achievements of in "developing ground breaking 
techniques to generate massive data sets that they are using to create predictive models of the human 
genome - and of common human diseases such as cancer, inflammatory bowel disease, and 
Alzheimer's disease." · The post 
does not mention and there are no materials indicating 
that promotes the tool to attract patients, to bolster its reputation, or for any other reasons. 
None of the references provide statistics for the use of or any other metric of its 
success. For the above reasons, while the Petitioner is solving problems that he has been hired to 
work on, he has not demonstrated his critical role for or the 
6 
Matter of H-L-
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner is not eligible because he has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a 
one-time achievement or documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria listed at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Thus, we need not fully address the totality of the materials in a final merits 
determination. 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 level of expertise required for the classification sought. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of H-L-, ID# 430656 (AAO July 13, 2017) 
7