dismissed EB-1A Case: Biotechnology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF S-S-T-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
~ ----~~-- -------------, 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 6, 2016 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a biotechnology scientist, seeks classification as an individual "of extraordinary 
ability" in the sciences. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 
8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(1 )(A). This classification makes visas available to foreign nationals 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, Texas Service Center, denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had not 
provided documentation satisfying the initial evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R 
§ 204.5(h)(3), which requires documentation of a one-timeachievement or evidence that meets at 
least three of the ten regulatory criteria. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In his appeal, the Petitioner argues that he meets the awards 
criterion at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3)(i) and the original contributions of major significance criterion at 8 
C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
The Petitioner may demonstrate her extraordinary ability through sustained national or international 
acclaim and achievements that have been recognized in her field through extensive documentation. 
Specifically, section 203(b)(l)(A) ofthe Act states: 
Aliens with extraordinary ability. --An alien is described in this subparagraph 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 
(b)(6)
J 
.. ··--·-----·-----------------------
Matter of S-S-T-
(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 achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is a 
major, internationally recognized award). If he does hot submit this documentation, then he must 
provide sufficient qualifying evidence that meets at least three of the ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
Satisfaction of at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this 
classification. 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 n~ber of criteria, 
considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also Visinscaia v. Beers, A F. Supp. 3d 
126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011); Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (holding that the "truth is to be determined not by the 
quantity of evidence alone but by its quality" and that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS) examines "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"). Accordingl y, where a petitioner submits qualifying evidence under at 
least three criteria, we will determine whether the totality of 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) , the petitioner, as initial evidence, may document a 
one-time achievement that is a major, internationally recognized award. In this case, the Petitioner 
has not stated or shown that he is the recipient of a qualifying award at a level similar to that of the 
Nobel Prize. As such, he must provide at least three of the ten types of documentation listed under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) to meet the basic eligibility requirement s. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The Petitioner submitted a booklet from the U.S. listing the 
1996 through 2013 recipients and describing their 
technologies. According to the booklet, "[ e ]ach winner demonstrates a commitment to designing, 
developing, and implementing a green chemical technology that is scientifically innovative , 
economically feasible, and less hazardous to human health and the environment. . . . typically 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of S-S-T-
honors five winners each year." 1 In 2013, the Petitioner's employer, 
received the Award. was 
recognized for devising "synthetic routes for the manufacture of 
that are only three steps in a single pot" and for implementing "these greener 
synthetic routes for the full-scale production of and their analogues" at the company's 
Texas manufacturing site." The plain language of this criterion, however, requires "the 
alien's receipt oflesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the 
field," and not just his employer. The record does not contain any evidence that the 
specifically identified the Petitioner as a Award recipient. 
The Petitioner also provided a December 2013 memorandum from 
manufacturing leader at to -All Employees" indicating that "the 
Manufacturing facility []received the 2013 Award." The 
memorandum congratulated the team's innovative work," but mentioned only 
senior manager of manufacturing at In addition, the Petitioner 
submitted photographs of and , vice president of manufacturing operations at 
(which recently acquired receiving the 
Award at a ceremony at the As evidence of his contribution to the award, 
the Petitioner offered letters of support from and indicating that he "validated" 
newly developed in the master mixes as part of the production process at the 
manufacturing facility. 
The record also included three December 2013 news releases from announcmg 
that the company's manufacturing facility had received the 
A ward. One news release mentioned and chief sustainability 
officer at The Petitioner, however, was not identified 
in any of the three articles. 
In addition , there is no documentary evidence showing that the 
Award is recognized at a level commensurate with a nationally or internationally 
recognized award for excellence in the field. We cannot conclude that news 
releases, which are not the result of independent media reportage, are reflective of the award's 
national or international recognition of excellence in the Petitioner's field. 
The Petitioner also provided various recognition certificates that he received from 
but these awards from his employer reflect institutional recognition rather than 
nationally or internationally recognized awards for excellence in the field. There is no evidence 
demonstrating that the Petitioner's employee recognition certificates were recognized beyond his 
company on a national or international level. 
1 In addition to honoring companies, a substantial number of the 
recognized specific individuals. 
3 
Awards 
(b)(6)
Matter of S-S-T-
In light of the above, the Petitioner has not established that he meets the requirements of this 
criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's participation , either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the 
work of others in the same or an allied field of spec?fication for which classification is 
sought. 
The Petitioner provided documentation of his peer review activities for 
and 
In addition, the record shows that the Petitioner served in editorial positions for 
and 
(a publisher of three scholarly journals). This evidence supports the Director's 
finding that the Petitioner meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field. 
The Petitioner offered various letters of support as evidence for this regulatory criterion. For 
instance, with respect to the Petitioner's agricultural research, an agricultural 
officer for the in India, described the Petitis:mer's work concerning 
the use of the bacteria pseudomonas fluorescence for controlling root knot nematodes (worms) in 
tomatoes and chilies. indicated that the Petitioner conceived "an innovative / 
fermentation methodology to .successfully develop [the bacteria] in huge numbers without the 
microbes losing their viability." In addition, noted that the Petitioner identified "the 
beneficial growth effects of the pseudomonas fluorescence" and how it helped tomatoes and chilies 
retain their flowers even in drastic conditions. He did not provide any specific examples of how the 
Petitioner's work has oeen widely utilized in farming operations or has otherwise been 
commensurate with original contributions of major significance in the field. 
stated that the Petitioner's aforementioned findings were published in 
and With regard to the Petitioner ' s 
published work, the regulations contain a separate criterion concerning the authorship of scholarly 
articles in professional publiCations. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). Regardless, there is no presumption 
that every published article is a contribution of major significance in the field; rather, the Petitioner 
must document the actual impact of his work. A substantial number of favorable independent 
citations for an article is an indicator that others are familiar with the work and have been influenced 
by it. A less extensive citation record, on the other hand, is generally not suggestive of the work's 
impact in the field. In this instance, there is no documentary evidence showing that any of the 
Petitioner's published articles have been frequently cited by independent researchers or have 
otherwise been of major significance to the field. 
Regarding the Petitioner's work for the textile industry, managing director of 
a fabric processing operation in India, indicated that in the 1990s, the Petitioner supplied 
his company with enzymes for garment mercerization. In addition , stated: "The 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of S-S-T-
cellulase enzyme developed by [the Petitioner] was efficient in removing the loose protruding fibers 
and prevent [sic] further pilling formation." also noted that the Petitioner's nutrient 
1and fermentation methodology allowed his company "to carry out the biopolishing process with 
varying temperatures." There is no evidence showing that any other companies have utilized the 
Petitioner's cellulase enzyme, or nutrient and fermentation methodology at a level indicative of 
contributions of major significance in the field. Lastly, indicated that the Petitioner 
published his work in but there is no documentation 
demonstrating that his findings have garnered a significant number of independent citations, that his 
original methodologies or garment mercerization enzyme have substantially altered practices in the 
fabric processing industry, or that his work otherwise constitutes contributions of major significance 
in the field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that "letters from the executives" at indicate "the 
magnitude of influence" that his work has had on the field. For example, 
former vice president of global manufacturing, described the Petitioner's management 
of projects involving the transfer of the company's new biotechnology products from research and 
development to manufacturing. noted that the Petitioner validated newly synthesized 
for reagents used in the assay of and helped implement re-
engineered manufacturing process. Similarly, stated that the Petitioner worked on 
"validating an innovative manufacturing process for called and that he 
"was tasked with the responsibility of validating these newly developed in the Master 
Mixes." added that the Petitioner's characterization of "these in Master Mix [was] 
crucial for successfully integrating the new in the upstream process flow." Lastly, 
explained that the Petitioner's "work in planning and executing the validation of in the 
Master Mixes is essential for [ ] delivering the researc~ tools for identifying the molecular 
mechanism of cells." Nonetheless, there is no documentary evidence demonstrating that the 
Petitioner's original work has affected the field beyond such that it constitutes a 
scientific contribution of major significance in the field. 
and also discussed how the Petitioner worked to help 
meet demand for reagents used to identify animal HlNl (influenza virus). For 
instance, stated: "Huge demand warranted a significant increase in production .... 
implemented a scale up process; [the Petitioner] identified the required tools and equipment, 
optimized for fast turnout of batches with high quality. This helped to ramp up 
the manufacturing of reagents .... " Although the Petitioner's actions helped boost his company's 
production of the HlNl reagents, there is no documentary evidence reflecting that his specific 
contribution to the project was original and of major significance in the field. 
With regard to the Petitioner's work for the plain language of this regulatory 
criterion requires that his original contributions be "of major significance in the field" rather than 
just to his employer and its customers. The record reflects that the Petitioner has validated new 
products created by research and development component, and worked to expand 
the company's manufacturing of reagents for identifying HlNl and of newly synthesized 
used in the assay of DNA. While the Petitioner did not provide citation counts for any articles he 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of S-S-T-
authored as part of his research projects with he offered search 
results for the company's test kit products: 
and The Petitioner points to the aforementioned 
online search results and contends that his work for has been "cited widely" and 
"used by numerous researchers to conduct their work." There is no intellectual property 
documentation showing, however, that the Petitioner was the inventor of the aforementioned 
products or their underlying technologies. l Although the Petitioner's involvement in the 
manufacturing process was valuable to there is no evidence demonstrating that 
his own processing methods, patented innovations, or other original contributions have affected the 
biotechnology industry in a substantial way or have otherwise risen to the level of original scientific 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
The Petitioner maintains that received the 
Award based on his planning and execution of the project to manufacture newly synthesized 
We addressed this award under the awards criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). Evidence relating to 
or even meeting the awards criterion is not presumptive evidence that the Petitioner also meets this 
criterion. Because separate criteria exist for awards and original contributions of major significance in 
the field, USCIS does not view the two as being interchangeable. To hold otherwise would render 
meaningless the regulatory requirement that a petitioner meet at least three separate criteria. 
Regardless, the Petitioner has not shown that the Award 
recogmzmg is indicative of his original contributions of major significance in the 
field. Furthermore, while the aforementioned ·award may recognize "a commitment to designing, 
developing, and implementing a green chemical technology that is scientifically innovative, 
economically feasible, and less hazardous to human health and the environment," there is no 
evidence demonstrating that the award was presented for an original scientific contribution of major 
significance in the field. 
The Petitioner states that "the work and significance of an individual whose contributions are not 
published and hence not cited" in other scientists' work should not be overlooked. The plain 
language of this criterion requires "[e]vidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, 
athletic, or business-related contributions" that are "of major significance in the field." Regardless 
of one's pul5lication record or citation counts, the evidence must be reviewed to see whether it rises 
to the level of original scientific contributions "of major significance in the field." The phrase 
"major significance" is' not superfluous and, thus, it has some meaning. Silverman v. Eastrich 
Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 51 F. 3d 28, 31 (3rd Cir. 1995) quoted in APWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 
619, 626 (2nd Cir. Sep 15, 2003). In the present matter, the letters of support and other 
documentation of record do not show that the Petitioner's original work has influenced the field at a 
level indicative of contributions of major significance. 
The Petitioner submitted letters of varying probative value. We have addressed the specific 
affirmations above. Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify specific contributions or 
their impact in the field have little probative value. See 1756, Inc. v. US. Att 'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 
15 (D.D.C. 1990) (holding that an agency need not credit conclusory assertions in immigration 
benefits adjudications). In addition, uncorroborated statements are insufficient. See Visinscaia, 4 
6 
(b)(6)
Matter of S-S-T-
F.Supp.3d at 134-35; Matter ofCaron Int'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988) (holding 
that an agency "may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements ... submitted in evidence 
as expert testimony," but is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an 
alien's eligibility for the benefit sought and "is not required to accept or may give less weight" to 
evidence that is "in any way questionable"). The submission of reference letters supporting the 
petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; US CIS may evaluate the content of those letters 
as to whether they support the petitioner's eligibility. Id. See also Matter ofV-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, · 
n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). 
Without additional, specific evidence showing that the .Petitioner's work has been l,lnusually 
influential, has substantially affected the biotechnology industry, or has otherwise risen to the level 
of original contributions of major significance in the field, the Petitioner has not established that he 
meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
The Petitioner authored articles in professional publications such as 
and Accordingly, the 
record supports the Director's finding that the Petitioner meets this regulatory criterion. 
B. Summary 
For the reasons discussed above, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not submitted the 
required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or documentation that meets at least three 
ofthe ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
III. CONCLUSION 
Had the Petitioner included the requisite material under at least three evidentiary categories, in 
accordance with the Kazarian opinion, our next step of analysis would be a final merits 
determination that considers all of the submissions in the context of whether he has achieved: ( 1) a 
"level of expertise indicating that [he] is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top 
of the field of endeavor," and (2) "that the [petitioner] has sustained national or international 
acclaim" and that his "achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. As the Petitioner has not done so, the 
proper conclusion is that he has not satisfied the antecedent regulatory requirement of presenting 
initial evidence set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). See Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1122. 
Nevertheless, although we need not provide the type of final merits determination referenced in 
Kazarian, a review of the record in the aggregate does not support a finding that the Petitioner has 
achieved the level of expertise required for this classification. The Petitioner has not demonstrated 
by a preponderance of the evidence that he is an individual of extraordinary ability in the bioscience 
field. A review of the submissions in the aggregate does not confirm that he has distinguished himself 
to such an extent that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to 
7 
Matter of S-S-T-
be within the small percentage at the very top of his field. The Petitioner, therefore, has not established 
eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
The burden is on the petitioner to show eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, the Petitioner 
has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofS-S-T-, ID# 11764 (AAO Oct. 6, 2016) 
8