dismissed EB-1A Case: Biomolecular And Biomaterials Research

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 7977790 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAY 27, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an assistant project scientist engaged in biomolecular and biomaterials research, 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 although the record 
established that the Petitioner satisfied the initial evidentiary requirements, it did not establish, as 
required, that the Petitioner has sustained national or international acclaim and is an individual in that 
small percentage at the very top of the field . The matter is now before us on appeal. 
The petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec . 369,375 (AAO 2010). The Administrative 
Appeals Office (AAO) reviews the questions in this matter de novo . See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 
l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review, 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 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) 
( 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). 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 relevance, 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 currently employed as an assistant project scientist at the University of~I -----~ 
I I in the Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Molecular Genetics. Her current 
research work focuses on the use ofl !technology to advance treatments for AIDS through 
'------~----' therapy. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that she has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, she must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Petitioner claimed that she meets three criteria, summarized below: 
• (iv), Participation as a judge of the work of others; 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance; and 
• (vi), Authorship of scholarly articles. 
The Director found that the Petitioner meets all three claimed criteria. The Petitioner's involvement in 
peer review of manuscripts for professional journals constitutes participation as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or allied field under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). The Petitioner has also authored 
scholarly articles published in professional publications under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
The Director also determined that the Petitioner established that she had made original scientific 
contributions of major significance in the field under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). The Petitioner asserts 
2 
that she has made original contributions in the fields o±i I for cancer, I I and 
D therapy for AIDS, as well as in the field of advanced I I materials for catalysts, high 
performance I I andl I storage, which was the focus of her earliest published research. 
To explain the nature and significance of the Petitioner's work in the field of biomaterials and 
I ~, I I a professor at the University! I states: 
[The Petitioner] has developed an extremely powerful drug-delivery technology which 
enables effective delivery of therapeutic agents for a broad range of applications, such as 
I I cancer and HIV therapy, and the treatment of central nervous system 
diseases. From the aspect of material design, [the Petitionerl creatively developed an[] 
I 
I technique, which allows the growth of al 1 • I shell around a 
_ I molecule i O I [The Petitioner's] 
~s-tr-a-te_g_y_a-ffi-o-rd~s the I I with precisely controlled composition and 
surface chemistry, enabling their effectively [sic] delivery to tissues and organs with 
targetability and controlled-release capability .... [T]he advantages of I I drugs can 
only be achieved through an effective delivery system. The platform technology [she] 
developed provides a universal and effective approach for drug development. 
The Petitioner provided evidence that she is listed as a co-inventor on several I I patents for 
.__ ___ ~I technology, and the evidence indicates that at least one atent has been licensed to a 
major pharmaceutical company for use in pre-clinical trials. L--:-------:---,-,---.-------..----:-' a I I 
professor, states that the Petitioner's 1 I delivery method for.__ _____ ~therapy has 
been applied to improve the delivery of over 20 clinical use medications, some of them are already 
tested in preclinical models with collaborations" although we find inadequate corroboration of this 
statement in the supporting documentation. 
We also note that extensive citation of published work can be a hallmark of major significance in the 
field. 1 At the time of filing, the Petitioner submitted her Google Scholar citation history showing that 
she had published 18 articles, all of which had been cited at least once by other researchers. The 
Petitioner's eight articles in her prior research field of.__ ______ ____, materials (published 
between 2008 and 2011) accounted for most of her citations ( approximately 86%) with one article in 
that field ofresearch accounting for 43% of her total with over 500 citations. 
Although the Director concluded that the Petitioner had established the major significance of her 
scientific contributions, as with all the regulatory criteria, satisfaction of this criterion does not 
establish eligibility or create a presumption of sustained acclaim. Because the Petitioner met three of 
the regulatory criteria, the Director proceeded to a final merits determination. 
1 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005 .1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJ 1-14, 8 (Dec. 22, 2010). 
http://www. uscis. gov /legal-resources/policy-memoranda. 
3 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the Petitioner submitted the reqms1te initial evidence, we will evaluate whether she has 
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, her sustained national or international acclaim and 
that she is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, and that her 
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 her successes are sufficient to demonstrate that she has extraordinary ability in the field 
of endeavor. See section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 
596 F.3d at 1119-20.2 In this matter, we determine that the Petitioner has not shown her eligibility. 
The record reflects that the Petitioner received her bachelor of science in chemical engineering at 
I I Institute of Tec~nolo:y ] China) in 2006, and her master of science and doctor of philosophy in 
chemical rginering a University (China) in 2008 and 20111 respecltively. She was a visiting 
student at from 2009 to 2010, and later conducted research at as a postdoctoral scholar 
from 2012 until 2016. She accepted her current position as an assistant project scientist withl l's 
Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Molecular Genetics in 2016. As mentioned above, the 
Petitioner judged the work of others within her field, authored scholarly articles, and made original 
scientific contributions through her research. The record, however, does not demonstrate that her 
achievements are reflective of a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. 
H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). 
In denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner has had a productive and successful 
career but has not shown that she has risen to the very top of the field and earned sustained national 
or international acclaim. The Director noted that some of the Petitioner's activities satisfy the 
individual regulatory criteria but, when viewed in the context of the record in its totality, do not 
establish eligibility. 
The Director found that the Petitioner's participation in the peer review of five manuscripts for Journal 
of Translational Medicine, Journal of Materials Chemistry B, and Biomaterials Science amounts to 
judging the work of others. However, the Director concluded that that the Petitioner did not establish 
how her peer review activity reflected her sustained acclaim or resulted in such acclaim, as the record 
did not establish that invitations to participate in the peer review process are reserved for the small 
percentage at the very top of the field. On appeal, the Petitioner objects to the Director's analysis and 
asserts that the Director applied a novel evidentiary requirement by suggesting that the Petitioner must 
establish that her judging activities reflect her acclaimed status. The Petitioner also argues that the 
Director applied an arbitrary standard by determining that the quantity of reviews she conducted did 
not "set her apart from others" in the field. 
However, we agree with the Director that an evaluation of the significance of the Petitioner's 
experience is appropriate to determine if such evidence is indicative of the extraordinary ability 
2 See also USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra at 4 (stating that USCTS officers should then 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 of the immigrant classification). 
4 
required for this highly restrictive classification. See Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1121-22. 3 The record 
reflects that the Petitioner peer reviewed five manuscripts for three journals in 2017. 4 She submitted 
information from the publishers of the three journals for which she served as a reviewer; however, she 
did not submit evidence of the journals' rankings in support of her claim that she had reviewed 
manuscripts for "top journals" as of the date of filing. Further, the Petitioner did not establish the 
various journals' requirements for peer reviewers, and therefore we cannot evaluate her judging 
activities in terms of those requirements. For example, participating in manuscript review for journals 
that select peer reviewers based on subject matter expertise does not provide strong support for the 
petition, because expertise is a lower threshold than acclaim. 
On appeal, the Petitiorr nrovides evidence that she has been invited to serve as a guest editor for a 
future special issue of I, along with evidence that this journal ranks highly in the 
"materials science (miscellaneous)" field. The invitation letter indicates that she would be responsible 
for inviting outstanding scholars in the field to submit research and review papers, which would be 
subject to peer review. The Petitioner, based on peer-review opinions received, would be expected 
"to make your professional judgment with our professional editors for these manuscripts." The 
Petitioner emphasizes that the invitation letter specifically states that "[a] reviewer must be a 
recognized leading expert with renowned international reputation" and "must has [sic] sustained 
national or international acclaim." However, the evidence does not reflect that the Petitioner was 
invited to participate as a peer reviewer. Further, while we acknowledge that her invitation to serve 
as a guest editor is notable and that the journal recognized her expertise in the subject matter and recent 
publications related to the special issue's topic, the invitation to serve as a guest editor occurred 
subsequent to the denial of the petition and recognizes research that she published while the petition 
was pending. The Petitioner's eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). 
In fact, the record reflects that all of the Petitioner's peer review activity occurred either in 201 7, the 
year prior to filing the petition, or in 2019, subsequent to filing. The Petitioner did not establish that 
these recent instances contribute to a finding that she has a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as 
contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. at 59. 
Finally, participation in the peer review process, even for reputable journals, does not automatically 
support a finding that an individual researcher has sustained national or international acclaim at the 
very top of their field. Similarly, the evidence in the record does not show that she has received 
acclaim or recognition for her peer review efforts. Without evidence differentiating her from those in 
her field, such as documentation showing that she has served in editorial positions for distinguished 
journals or publications, chaired technical committees for reputable conferences, or has a consistent 
history of completing a substantial number of review requests relative to others, the Petitioner has not 
established that her peer review experience places her among that small percentage at the very top of 
the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
3 See also, USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra at 13 (stating that "the alien's participation [as a judge] 
should be evaluated to determine whether they were indicative of the alien 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.") 
4 On appeal, the Petitioner provides evidence that she reviewed two additional manuscripts in 2019 ( for Biomaterials 
Science and Journal of Materials Chemishy B). 
5 
Likewise, the publication of a petitioner's scientific research does not automatically place one at the 
top of the field. Here, the Petitioner presented evidence showing that she authored approximately 20 
papers in professional journals between 2008 and 2018. 5 As authoring scholarly articles is often 
inherent to the work of scientists and researchers, the citation history or other evidence of the influence 
of her articles can be an indicator to determine the impact and recognition that her 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 her 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. 
As noted above, the research conducted by the Petitioner during a portion of her graduate studies and 
published between 2008 and 2011, focused on.__ ______ __,materials, which is not the field of 
research in which she is currently engaged or the field in which she intends to continue her research 
in the United States. At the time of filing, approximately 86% of her 1166 total citations were citations 
to her articles published in this field, and on appeal, that percentage remains at over 81 % of her total 
citations. The Petitioner's most cited article in her previous field ofresearch, published in 2011, has 
610 citations, while her most cited article in the biomaterials field, published later in 2011, has 67 
citations as of the date of the appeal. Both articles were published in Advanced Materials, but the 
fields of research are distinct. In fact, several of the expert opinion letters comment on the Petitioner's 
marked transition from I co I materials to performing research in the field of 
biomaterials and drug delivery. 
The Petitioner has maintained that based on citation statistics obtained from Clarivate Analytics her 
total number of citations since 2008 places her in the top 0 .1 % in the field of materials science and in 
the field of molecular biology and genetics. The citation figures she used as a comparison was an "all 
years" citation rate derived from averaging the top .1 % citation threshold for all publications in the 
specific field in a given year over an 11-year period. However, none of the Petitioner's individual 
publications reached this threshold. For example, her most cited article in her current research field 
reached the top 20% in molecular biology and top 10% in materials science when compared to other 
articles published in the same year. At the time of filing, the Petitioner had accumulated 160 total 
citations for her research in the molecular biology field, published between 2011 and 2018. 
Some of the submitted expert opinion letters also discuss the Petitioner's citation history. For example, 
I I noted that five of the Petitioner's articles in the molecular biology field had been 
cited 1. 6 to 2. 7 times "higher than the average" according to Essential Science Indicators. For example, 
she indicated that the Petitioner's 2011 Advanced Materials article in this field was cited 1.6 times 
higher than the average paper published in 2011 but did not indicate how that above-average citation 
rate indicates that she has been recognized as being at the top of the field. 
The Petitioner also claimed that, between 2015 and 2018, she published more papers and received 
more citations than "some of the named leading scientists in [her] specific research field - molecular 
5 The record reflects that the Petitioner subsequently authored four articles that were published or accepted for publication 
in Advanced Materials and Nature Biomedical Engineering in 2019. The Petitioner must establish that all eligibility 
requirements for the immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time of the filing and continuing through 
adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
6 
biology & genetics, proving that [she] is one of the very few scientists who have risen to the very top 
of her field." The evidence objectively shows that she had a higher publication rate and more citations 
compared to the scientists that she selected for comparison. However, she did not explain how this 
recent short window of activity places her among these "leading scientists." 
Biographical information relating to these individuals indicates that their overall accomplishments and 
reputations substantially exceed those of the Petitioner. The Petitioner does not place himself among 
their ranks simply by showing that her output was, by some measures, comparable to theirs from 2015 
to 2018. For example, one of these scientists is a Harvard professor who is credited with making 
several fundamental discoveries regarding DNA replication and genetic recombination in the 1950s 
and 1960s. The referenced professor is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has served 
on its council, holds many other distinguished memberships and honorary degrees, and has received a 
number of prestigious nationally and internationally recognized prizes. While we acknowledge that 
the Petitioner could establish eligibility without demonstrating that she has received this very high 
degree of acclaim and recognition, the narrow focus on her very recent publication record does not 
provide an appropriate basis for comparison to the "leading scientists" she identified. 
The Petitioner's citation evidence indicates that she has been quite productive during her career thus 
far, in two different fields, and that her peers have noticed her work. But she has not established that 
the rates of citation are sufficient to demonstrate a level of interest in her field commensurate with 
sustained national or international acclaim. See section 203(b )( 1 )(A) of the Act. The statute demands 
"extensive documentation" of recognition. We have taken her citation record into consideration, but 
she cannot rely primarily on that record to mathematically place herself at the top of the field without 
other persuasive evidence of sustained acclaim. 
On appeal, the Petitioner also emphasizes that she has published her research in Advanced Materials, 
which is ranked third out of 609 journals in the field "materials science (miscellaneous)." A given 
publication's high ranking or impact factor is reflective of the publication's overall citation rate. It 
does not, however, demonstrate the influence of any specific author within the field or how an author's 
research has had an impact within the field. As of the date of filing, the Petitioner demonstrated that 
she had published two articles in Advanced Materials in 2011, but she has not provided the rankings 
for other journals that published her work. On appeal, the Petitioner provides evidence that she 
published three additional articles in Advanced Materials in 2019, including one selected as the cover 
article, and another chosen for the publication's inside back cover. However, she did not establish 
that publishing two, or even five, articles in one highly ranked journal is indicative of being among 
the small percentage at the very top of her field or a career of acclaimed work. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2) and H.R. Rep. No. at 59. 
As it relates to her research, the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not acknowledge that her 
publications have been cited in a significant number of review articles and highlights some of these 
articles on ap:eal. One of the review articles, 1 , , I 
I I (Journal of Controlled Release), cites to the Petitioner's 2011 Advanced Materials 
article o~ I and states the following: 
7 
The Petitioner maintains that this citation, and others in the record, show that her work was singled 
out for special attention, but she has not established how mentions of this kind translate into sustained 
national or international acclaim. The review article discusses the other 126 source articles in similar 
terms; there is no special emphasis on the Petitioner's work relative to the hundreds of researchers 
who contributed to the other cited articles. The stated purpose of the article is to survey 
.__ ___ ___.I." This article and others like it acknowledge the Petitioner's contributions to the 
advancement of what appears to be an active field ofresearch but are not indications that she has been 
recognized by the field as one of the small percentage ofresearchers at the very top. 
The record also contains ten recommendation letters that summarize the Petitioner's research and 
original contributions. The Director acknowledged the submitted letters but found that "the submission 
of solicited letters supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility." The Director cited 
case law indicating that USCIS may, in its discretion, consider advisory opinions as expert testimony, 
but that USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding eligibility. 
MatterofCaronlnt'l, 19I&NDec. 791,795 (Comm'r.1988). 
The Director's decision reflects that he granted some weight to the letters and likely relied on them, in 
part, in determining that the Petitioner had met the original contributions criterion. Letters of this kind 
can help to explain the nature and impact of the Petitioner's contributions but should be supported with 
corroborating documentary evidence to establish that the Petitioner is recognized as being at the top of 
the field. The record does not show that the writers' views represent the consensus within that field. 
Instead, the authors make general assertions repeating the statute and regulations. 6 For instance, D I lstates that her conclusion is that the Petitioner "is one of that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of her field of endeavor" and that she "has sustained national or international 
acclaim." .__ ______ ____, Fellow ofl !National Laboratories states that the Petitioner "is 
a research scientist of extraordinary ability recognized al being 
1
at the very top of her field." D I I a professor in the Petitioner's department at states that it is his "expert opinion 
that [ the Petitioner] is an extraordinary research scientist with outstanding research ability in 
bioanalytical research" and that her citations and peer review invitations "clearly demonstrate that she 
has been recognized by her peers for being one of the small percentage at the very top of her field." 
I lstates that "the evidence shows that [the Petitioner] has sustained national or 
international acclaim and her achievement have been recognized in the field" and that she "is a 
research scientist of extraordinary ability at the very top of her field (top 1 %)." 
Repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. 
Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 
1990); Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). Here, the letters do not 
provide sufficient information and explanation, nor does the record include sufficient corroborating 
6 Although we only address the letters highlighted by the Petitioner on appeal, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
8 
evidence, to show that the Petitioner is viewed by the overall field, rather than by a solicited few, 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 emphasizes that the experts who provided their opinions also detailed the facts that led 
them to conclude that she is at the top of the field. We acknowledge that the submitted letters 
referenced her publications, citation record, contributions and peer review activities. However, as 
discussed above, we have reviewed this evidence and do not find, for example, that the Petitioner's 
one year of experience as a peer reviewer supports a finding that she has sustained acclaim and is at 
the very top of her field. 
The Petitioner has shown that she is a capable and productive researcher, whose work is valued by 
other researchers in her field and has contributed to advances in drug delivery research. Nevertheless, 
her most highly cited work, and most of her overall citations, are in a field in which she no longer 
conducts research. The objective evidence in the record indicates that the Petitioner's most recent 
work in her current field has attracted increasing attention, as documented by her three recent 
Advanced Materials articles, her invitation to guest edit an issue of that publication, recent 
opportunities to act as a peer reviewer in the biomaterials field, and a recent conference invitation. 
However, most of this evidence post-dates the filing of the petition. 
The record 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 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 record shows that the Petitioner's accomplishments have been well received, the totality of the 
evidence does not indicate she has sustained national or international acclaim and she is among the small 
percentage at the top of his field. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated her 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. 
9