dismissed EB-1A Case: Cancer Biology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 9945545 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : OCT . 19, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a research associate engaged in the cellular and molecular mechanisms of 
carcinogenesis, 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 
Petitioner met the initial evidentiary requirements, she did not establish the requisite national or 
international acclaim, and standing in the overall field, to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
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 will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) 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 
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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
According to her curriculum vitae, the Petitioner received her Master of Science degree in 
immunology atl µniversity in 2003 and her Doctor of Philosophy degree in cell 
biology at the I IAcademy of Sciences in 2009. At the time of filing in March 2019, she was 
employed as a postdoctoral research associate at I I in I I Minnesota in the 
Derrtment of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, where her research work focused on the roles of 
the_ ~ and the immune checkpoint regulator I I inl I cancers, including 
breast cancer and pancreatic cancer. 
In denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not indicate that she received a 
major, internationally recognized award, and that she therefore must satisfy at least three of the ten 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Director concluded that the Petitioner met all three of the 
initial evidentiary criteria claimed by her, relating to judging under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), original 
contributions of major significance under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), and authorship of scholarly 
articles under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 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). However, for the reasons discussed below, 
we do not agree with the Director's finding that the Petitioner satisfied the original contributions 
criterion. Accordingly, after reviewing all the evidence in the record, we find that the Petitioner meets 
only two of the ten initial evidentiary criteria. 
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) 
As evidence under this criterion, the Petitioner submitted partial copies of her publications, citation 
evidence for her published work, letters from experts in the field, and other evidence. As mentioned 
previously, the Director found that this documentation demonstrated the Petitioner's original 
contributions of major significance in the field. In order to fulfill the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
2 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner must establish that not only has she 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. For the 
reasons outlined below, we find that the documentation submitted does not sufficiently demonstrate 
that the Petitioner meets the requirements of this criterion. Accordingly, the Director's determination 
on this issue will be withdrawn. 
On appeal, the Petitioner emphasizes that at the time she filed her petition she had authored 1 7 articles 
in professional journals. As one type of evidence of the impact of her work, she provided a March 
2019 Google Scholar citation history reflecting 214 cumulative citations to those articles, authored by 
her between 2003 and 2018. Specifically, the record shows that her six highest cited articles received 
94 (Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications), 37 (Cellular Immunology), 21 (The 
Journal of Immunology), 15 ( Cell Biology International), 13 (Oncogene), and 10 (Biochemistry & 
Physiology) citations, respectively. 2 While the Petitioner's citations, both individually and 
collectively, show that field has noticed her work, she has not established that such rates of citation 
are sufficient to demonstrate a level of interest in her field commensurate with contributions "of major 
significance in the field." 3 
As another form of evidence under this criterion, the Petitioner contends that a number of experts have 
offered testimony regarding the significance of her work. 4 Although several of the letters assert that 
the Petitioner's original scientific discoveries have "significantly advanced the field of understanding 
the cellular and molecular mechanisms of disease states and cancer biology," they do not sufficiently 
explain or justify their assertions. For example, the Petitioner's former supervisor 
during her master's studies at Universit discusses the Petitioner's work on the 
molecular mechanisms of a case of .__ _________ _.occurring in an infant. He asserts that 
the Petitioner's work detailing a specific mutation as a major factor in the first reported case ofl I I !deficiency in China "is of paramount importance for the development of effective therapeutic 
strategies that can target the specific location of the mutation she identified to treat I t 
and can "advance the field's ability to screen family members for I !deficiency." He does not 
explain how other researchers have used this information to date, nor does the record show that 
therapeutic treatments or screening tests have been derived from this particular research. In addition, 
asl l's letter only discusses the Petitioner's research findings regarding a case of infant 
I I it does not provide sufficient support for his additional assertion that the Petitioner's 
work "has had a widespread impact on the advancement of novel therapeutic strategies to improve 
patient outcomes for the millions of cancer patients across the world." 
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 ADll-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 The Petitioner's remaining 11 publications received between 1 and 8 citations, with four articles garnering no citations. 
3 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8 (providing an example that peer-reviewed articles in 
scholarly journals that have provoked widespread commentary or received notice from others working in the field, or 
entries (particularly a goodly number) in a citation index which cite the individual's work as authoritative in the field, may 
be probative of the significance of the person's contributions to the field of endeavor). 
4 Although we discuss only a sampling of these letters we have reviewed and considered each one. 
3 
_______ I the Petitioner's former supervisor at thel IAcad m ciences, indicates 
the Petitioner obtained her Ph.D. in cell biology for her research involvin thera ies for D 
I I and the molecular mechanisms underlying the treatment of.__ _______ _, with the 
FDA-approved d "F'-----, ______ J He explains that the Petitioner developed a novel 
method to geJtl.e!:aifL_...,___J: progenitor cells for trans lantation intol I patients to create 
cells for the treatment o . He asserts that the Petitioner's novel 
method will-"e_n_a...,.b-le-th_e ..... development of novel .__ ____ _. treatments for I I" His 
letter does not explain how the Petitioner's novel method has been widely implemented or how it has 
been regarded by the field as a contribution of 
1
ajol significance. In addition,! I noted that 
the Petitioner conducted research to characterize 's effects onOcells, wlp.ch,recent research 
has demonstrated pl~ role inD He asserts that · · ' ·ng thatLJs ef~ectivfness 
for the treatment of LJ is principally a function of it cells, rather tha cells 
as was previously hypothesized, identifie .__ ____ __, as a novel pharmaceutical target for the 
treatment ofD His letter does not demonstrate, however, that the Petitioner's research has resulted 
in new drugs for the treatment o0that are available in the marketplace; rather, it appears that such 
an impact remains prospective in nature. 
The record also contains a letter froml l the Petitire;·s sup,~isor when she wa.s an 
instructor a~---~luniversity of! I states that the Petitioner 
conducted research on the mechanism by which the natural compound lowersl I 
levels and reduces I I inl I "in order to advance the prescription of 
I land related compounds in this widespread disease." He provides that based on the 
Petitioner's work, showing the molecular mechanism by whichl I reduces blood glucose levels 
by activating insulin siiialing through thel I activity, clinical use ~ b ~ 
treating! was "advanced" and "novel drugs specifically designed tol I 
activity can be developed ." I I does not indicate that based on the Petitioner's rork the 
prescription oft lforl I has become standard clinical practice or that ] 
I I drugs have been developed. Rather, his letter discusses how the Petitioner 's findings may 
impact the field at some point in the future but does not demonstrate how her work already qualifies 
as a contribution of major significance in the field. In addition, I Is letter only discusses the 
Petitioner's research findings regarding the mechanism by whicH llowers blood glucose 
levels and does not provide sufficient support for his additional assertion that the Petitioner's work 
has advanced the development of novel therapies for cancer. 
_____ __.I the Petitioner's supervisor at I I provides information regarding the 
Petitioner's findings as a postdoctoral research fellow and research associate ::itl 5 Ion 
the roles of the I I and the immune checkpoint re~ulatorL-_ 4 _.·.l.&...--i~---___J 
cancers, including b;east cance; and pancreatic cancer. I !explains,.a.th=a=t'------""""""....;;.;;;;~..a...a.a., 
regulate essential cellular events that occur durin cancer metastasis, and th .__ _______ _, 
a therapy for.__ __ ..,.... __ .,..._ _______ __.,. The Petitioner conducted r~......,......_ ................ ......., 
mechanisms by which.__ __ is linked to breast cancer metastasis and promotes th;::..e.!z:::::===::::;-----' 
pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Her research determined that targeting ___ inhibits 
breast cancer metastasis and slows the progression of PDAC, and that la ,---........, 
in enabling cancer cells to avoid immune attack by regulatin,!.f:>L----.----r----'-1---.,.. dicates 
that the Petitioner's research demonstrated thatl I is a ___ _. and for the 
metastasis of breast cancer and PDAC and enhancing immune checkpoint ________ ~ 
4 
therapies for I She asserts that the Petitioner's research contributions have "identified target 
molecules and cellular and molecular mechanisms that enable development of improved treatments 
for breast and pancreatic cancer," but she does not indicate that improved treatments for breast and 
pancreatic cancer have already been developed based on the Petitioner's research findings. 
The Petitioner also rovided an ex ert testimonial letter frortj I a professor at 
University L_ ___ ,----------,- ___ _J highlighting the Petitioner's aforementioned 
research findin s at University, [,-------.. I I I 
University~-------------~ and]._--___ _.n I asserts that the 
Petitioner's "contributions have enabled the development of treatments for hyperlipidemia, diabetes, 
multiple sclerosis, breast cancer, and pancreatic cancer," although we find inadequate corroboration 
of this statement in the supporting documentation. 5 
In addition, several authors of the letters asserted that they have utilized the Petitioner's findings in 
their research. For instance, a professor ofl I oncology at the University 
who cited to the Petitioner's 2015 Oncogene article in his 
review article 'L..-------------------r---,__ ____ ____J(Trends in Cancer), 
stated that the Petitioner's work "clarified the vital role o .~-~ ... in regulating tumor growth and 
metastasis" and provided "direction for further investigations." He asserted her research has been "of 
major significance for the development of novel diagnostic I I and therapeutic I I to 
improve the success of cancer therapy." His letter does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's research 
has resulted in new anti-cancer drugs or I I that are available in the marketplace; rather, it 
appears that that the Petitioner's work has potential to majorly impact the field in the future. On 
appeal, the Petitioner provides a partial copy o~ ts article showing his citation to her 
work, and maintains that this citation and others in the record show that her work was singled out for 
special attention, but she has not established that the impact of her work on the overall fields of cell 
or molecular biology rises to the level of an original contribution of major significance. 6 The article, 
the stated purpose of which is to "review the I I signaling axis in cancer," discusses 
more than 60 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. This article and 
others like it acknowledge the Petitioner's contributions to the advancement of what appears to be an 
active area of research but are not indications that her work has substantially influenced the field or 
otherwise rises to the level of an original contribution of major significance in the field. 
a professor of chemistry and biochemistry atl cited to the 
Petitioner's 2010 Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications article in his 2011 article 
(Biochimie ). He indicates that ~--------------------------~ the Petitioner's work demonstrated a previously unknown mechanism of ~---------~ 
5 We further note thad ~s letter and several others identify an additional original contribution, that the 
Petitioner has shown that I I signal promqtes metf stasis ofc=] by activating I I 
~-------~ and performs functions independent otl.__~ Those letters reflect that the Petitioner "is 
preparing her findings for publication in a leading journal," but the record does not reflect that her research in this area had 
been published at the time the petition was filed on March 28, 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 Although we discuss a sample article, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
5 
effects and " rovided valuable information for developing a novel therapeutic □ in the treatment 
of "I I a professor of behavioral genetics at the University of 
.,__ ______ ......_c_it_ed_t_o_t....,he Petitioner's 2009 Journal of Immunology article in his review article 
.__ ___________ L..i.:;;,Experimental Neurology). He states that the Petitioner's finding that 
r4e ;j.__ _______ __, exerts a therapeutic effect againsOby preventing the development 
o cells is "of major significance due to its impact on our understanding of thd I 
pat way" and "can be used to develop novel therapies for neurological diseases . .. that function by 
inhibiting the effects of the I I imbalance." 7 While the aforementioned scientists have 
cited to the Petitioner's work, the record does not show that her findings have affected the field in a 
major way, that her research has been widely utilized or heavily cited, or that her work otherwise 
constitutes contributions of major significance in the field. This evidence confirms that others were 
able to build upon the Petitioner's work and apply it to their own research. But it does not show that 
the impact of her work on the overall field rises to the level of an original contribution of major 
significance . The fact that the Petitioner has published articles that other researchers have referenced 
is not, by itself, indicative of a contribution of major significance. Publications are not sufficient under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that they were of "major significance ." 
o
1 
appeal( the Petitioner emphasizes that her most recent publications focus on "elucidating the role 
of in cancer" which she asserts is "a very specialized research area" and argues that an 
equitable comparison of her work would be to those researchers who work in "this area of the field." 
She argues that her "substantial impact on the field" is shown by documentation submitted from 
PubMed indicating that "of the 20 articles tagged with I I and 'cancer"' the Petitioner "has 
authored 25% of scholarly articles ... and had her work referenced in 4 7% of the remaining articles." 
However, the Petitioner's current research appears to be conducted in broad fields such as cell biology, 
molecular biology, cancer biology, and sub-specialties such as carcinogenesis. The Petitioner's 
identification of a "specialized research area" as a field of expertise is a narrowing of her field to an 
extent which prevents meaningful comparison. In this case, while the record establishes the 
Petitioner's involvement in various research projects, it does not show the Petitioner's influence on 
the field of cell or molecular biology as a whole. The submissions do not demonstrate her impact at a 
level consistent with a finding of "major significance in the field." 
The letters considered above primarily contain broad attestations of the significance of the Petitioner's 
research studies without providing specific examples of original contributions that rise to a level 
consistent with major significance. Letters that specifically articulate how a petitioner's contributions 
are of major significance to the field and its impact on subsequent work add value. 8 Letters that lack 
specifics and use hyperbolic language do not add value, and are not considered to be probative 
evidence that may form the basis for meeting this criterion. 9 USCIS need not accept primarily 
conclusory statements. 1756, Inc. v. The US. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). The 
authors' assertions in the above-referenced letters do not explain how the Petitioner's research findings 
have been widely implemented or relied upon by others in the field, or explain how her "contributions 
7 On appeal, the Petitioner provides four additional papers citing to her work which were published in professional journals 
subsequent to the filing of the petition in March 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) . 
8 See USC IS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, supra, at 8-9. 
9 Id.at9. 
6 
have enabled the development of treatments for hyperlipidemia, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, breast 
cancer, and pancreatic cancer." Without additional detail explaining her accomplishments relating to 
new or innovative techniques or findings, the letters discussed above do not establish that the 
Petitioner's research has had a demonstrable impact in her field commensurate with a contribution of 
major significance . Simply stating that the work is important or that it has potential to majorly impact 
the field in the future is not sufficient. The expert opinion evidence reviewed in its totality does not 
establish how the Petitioner has already made a contribution of major significance in the field, rather 
than generally discussing the prospective, potential impacts of her research . 
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 level of expertise 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 reviewed manuscripts, conducted original research, and authored scholarly 
articles. Regarding the Petitioner's work as the judge of others, she has not presented documentation 
that sets her apart from others in her field, such as evidence that she has a consistent history of 
completing a substantial number of review requests relative to others, served in an editorial position 
for a distinguished journal or publication, or chaired a technical committee for a reputable conference, 
to establish 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). 
Documentation submitted on appeal from Publons.com does not provide enough details to substantiate 
the Petitioner's claim that her number of completed manuscript reviews places her among the small 
percentage at the very top of her field; it does not indicate how Publons derives its rankings, whether 
its statistics are based on self-reported information rather than derived from an impartial source, and 
how its statistics relate to the field as a whole. In addition, letters submitted from several journals 
indicating the Petitioner was selected as a peer reviewer based on subject matter expertise, and not 
upon notable achievements or acclaim, do not demonstrate that her judging experience is indicative of 
her placement among the small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field. Further, as all 
but four of the Petitioner's reviews occurred between 2015 and 2018, the Petitioner did not establish 
that her judging experience over a three-year period contributes to a finding that she has a "career of 
acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723 at 59. 
Lastly, the Petitioner has not demonstrated, through her citation evidence or expert testimonials, that 
her research work is indicative of sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the 
field. See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. 
7 
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. 
8