dismissed EB-1A Case: Cancer Research

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 25425005 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 12, 2023 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a cancer research scientist, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(l)(A), 8 U.S .C. § l 153(b )(l)(A). This 
first preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who can demonstrate their 
extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have 
been recognized in their field through extensive documentation . 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner had satisfied at least three of ten initial evidentiary criteria, as required . 
The matter is now before us on appeal. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec . 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo 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 petitioner can demonstrate 
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. 20 I 0) 
( 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); Rijalv. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). 
TI. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a physician specializing in cancer research. He received his Doctor of Medicine 
degree from I !Medical University in 2011. At the time of filing in July 2022, he was 
employed as a physician and researcher in the abdominal oncology department of the National Medical 
Research Center for Oncology in !Russia. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or demonstrated that he has received a major, internationally 
recognized award at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), he must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). In denying the petition, the Director determined that the 
Petitioner met two of the criteria, judging at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and scholarly articles at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he also meets two additional criteria, 
membership in associations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) and original contributions of major 
significance at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). Upon review of the record, we agree with the Director that 
the Petitioner has satisfied the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi). We will discuss the other 
claimed criteria below. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
class[fication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
In order to meet this criterion, a petitioner must establish that membership in the association requires 
outstanding achievements in the field for which classification is sought, as judged by recognized 
2 
national or international experts. 1 The Petitioner claims he meets this criterion based upon his 
membership in the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the Russian Society of 
Oncologic Urologists (RSOU). 2 
Regarding ASCO, within his response to the Director's request for evidence, the Petitioner submitted 
evidence of his membership and an article from ASCO titled "American Society of Clinical Oncology 
Criteria for High-Quality Clinical Pathways in Oncology." The article provides ASCO's criteria to 
assess the quality of pathway programs used by health plans and medical providers. On appeal, the 
Petitioner provides an online printout from ASCO' s website, indicating that the organization offers "a 
variety of membership categories and benefits designed to fit your career stage and specific needs." 
The above documents establish that ASCO is a professional association representing physicians and 
other health care professionals working in the field of oncology. There is no evidence (such as 
membership bylaws or other official documentation of membership criteria) showing ASCO's 
admission requirements, or that recognized national or international experts judge the outstanding 
achievements for membership with ASCO. 
Pertaining to RSOU, the Petitioner submitted evidence of his membership, the society's charter dated 
2018, and information about other members of the organization, including its president, executive 
director, and several board members. The Petitioner did not establish that the RSOU membership 
requirements rise to the level of "outstanding achievements" consistent with this regulatory criterion. 
Instead, based on the presented documentation, RSOU membership is open to those who "have 
reached the age of 18, who are oncologists, oncourologists, chemotherapists, radiologists, 
pathomorphologists, or specialists in related fields, who have a high professional level recognized by 
leading experts in the industry." The charter also indicates that membership decisions are made by a 
simple majority vote of members of the relevant bureau, either of a regional office or of RSOU. 
The Petitioner did not submit evidence that RSOU requires anything other than the Petitioner having 
attained certain educational requirements to become a member of the organization. The stated 
educational requirements of the organization are not outstanding achievements. Although RSOU 
requires that prospective members provide evidence of "a high professional level," the record does not 
establish the process by which prospective members are evaluated by the relevant bureau. Therefore, 
the evidence does not demonstrate that RSOU imposes an additional qualitative criterion that amounts 
to an "outstanding achievement" requirement. Although on appeal the Petitioner highlights the fact 
that RSOU "votes on whether to accept members," this would be commensurate with many 
associations, as membership in any society must be reviewed and evaluated before acceptance. There 
is nothing to indicate that the RSOU selects members on the basis of outstanding achievements. 
In this case, the evidence does not demonstrate that ASCO or RSOU selects members based on 
outstanding achievements. For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not show that he 
satisfies this criterion. 
1 See also 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. 
2 The Petitioner previously claimed eligibility for this criterion based on his membership with other associations; however, 
he does not argue on appeal, nor does the record reflect, his eligibility based on those associations. 
3 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
In order to meet this criterion, a petitioner must demonstrate that his contributions are not only original, 
but also "of major significance in the field." 3 For example, a petitioner may show that the 
contributions have been widely implemented throughout the field, have remarkably impacted or 
influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major significance in the field. 
The Petitioner's statement provides that his scientific interest is "related to malignant tumors, their 
diagnosis and overcoming resistance to therapy." Specifically, his research work in Russia and the 
United States has involved "biomarkers that make it possible to predict the course of disease in patients 
with colorectal cancer, esophageal cancer, and lung cancer." He indicated that his work focused on 
thel I known to show increased activity in some types of cancers. 
As stated, this criterion requires the Petitioner to establish that he has made original contributions of 
major significance. Thus, the burden is on the Petitioner to identify his original contributions and 
explain why they are of major significance in the field. Although the Petitioner provided evidence 
reflecting the originality of his research through recommendation letters praising him for his 
contributions, the authors do not provide specific examples of contributions that are indicative of major 
significance. 4 
In general, the letters recount the Petitioner's research and findings, indicate their publication in 
journals, and comment on their potential and possible future applications. But the letters do not 
demonstrate that his research has made the required impact in the field. For example, Dr. E-A-G, 
professor of molecular therapeutics at I I states that the Petitioner worked with 
her laboratory on two scientific studies. She indicates that one project was the first to show the 
possibility of using the I protein as a diagnostic biomarker and a possible therapeutic target 
for non-small cell lung cancer. That scientific work was published in Oncogenesis in 2021. She 
provides that the Petitioner "performed extensive work using cell line models for this project, as well 
as much of the patient-related research and interpretation of obtained data." 
Regarding an additional 
project 
with her laboratory, Dr. E-A-G- states the Petitioner studied the role 
of the 1 _ as a biomarker in 125 patients with colorectal cancer and in patients with 
colon polyps. The Petitioner's study, published in Plos ONE in 2021, found that elevated levels of 
I lwere associated with worse prognosis, metastasis, and risk of relapse following treatment, 
and indicated I I increase is an early step in cancer development. She asserts that the 
Petitioner's findings, coupled with other published work, support the use of _____ __,levels 
as a new diagnostic biomarker in patients with colorectal cancer, and suggest the utility of developing 
drugs to target! for the prevention of malignant tumors. 
3 See also 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(2) (providing guidance on the review of evidence submitted to satisfy 
the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x)) (stating that although funded and published work may be "original," 
this fact alone is not sufficient to establish that the work is of major significance). 
4 While we do not discuss every letter submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 
Dr. E-A-G- indicates that the research projects the Petitioner has performed "are of great importance 
for the development of new methods of treatment and diagnosis of cancer," but she does not explain 
how other researchers have used this information to date, nor does the record show that diagnostic or 
therapeutic treatments have been derived from those particular research projects. 
Additional letters of support from the Petitioner's colleagues at ________ including 
Dr. A-K- and Dr. I-A-, summarize the Petitioner's research work at that institution. Dr. I-A­
characterizes the Petitioner's findings as "a significant contribution to the development of diagnosis 
and prevention of colorectal cancer." His letter does not sufficiently detail in what ways the Petitioner 
has advanced the state of research in his field or elaborate on how the Petitioner's work has already 
impacted the wider field beyond the team ofresearchers that has directly cited his article on this topic. 
Further, the Petitioner provided letters from Dr. V-T-, a research fellow at thel I 
_____ and the Petitioner's mentor at thel I for Oncology. 
Dr. V-T- states that the Petitioner was responsible for the development and implementation of a new 
protocol,! for the treatment of esophageal cancer at the cancer center of 
thel I for Oncology. He asserts the new protocol "significantly 
improved the long term outcomes of treatment in patients in our community." 
Moreover, letters from Dr. Y-B-, an oncologist at indicates he collaborated 
with the Petitioner, both on the aforementioned research ro · ects at and on 
two separate projects. Regarding the Petitioner's work at he asserts "[t]he 
results shown by [ the Petitioner] in his research of the new biomarker ____ in colorectal cancer 
are [a] major contribution and have great significance to the development of health care, science and 
improving of cancer patients' life." However, he does not discuss in detail how the Petitioner's work 
has already remarkably impacted their shared field, or provide examples of specific applications 
attributed to the Petitioner's work in this area. 
Regarding the two additional projects referenced by Dr. Y-B-, he indicates one involved a patient 
study that "revealed 9 significantly up-regulated proteins, and 1 significantly down-regulated protein 
in colorectal cancer tissue." Regarding the study's significance, Dr. Y-B- states that "for the first time 
we have shown previously unknown information about 9 proteins in colorectal cancer." Relating to 
the second project, he provides that scientific work analyzed new therapeutic options and targets for 
glioblastoma multiforrne. He indicates the results of these projects were published, respectively, in 
The Protein Journal and the International Journal of Oncology. 
The letters considered above, solicited from the Petitioner's collea ues at 
I for Oncology, and primarily contain 
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. 5 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. 6 
5 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(2). 
6 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(2). 
5 
USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory statements. 1756, Inc. v. Attorney General, 745 F. Supp. 
9, 15 (D.D.C. 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 his 
research findings have already made a "major contribution and have great significance to the 
development of health care," as asserted. Simply stating that the work is important or that it has 
potential to majorly impact the field in the future is not sufficient. Without additional detail explaining 
his 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 his field commensurate 
with a contribution of major significance. 
In addition to the submitted expert opinion letters, the Petitioner references his overall citation record, 
provides copies of articles that include what he considers to be notable citations to his work, and 
submits the ranking of the journal that has published his most-cited work. Regarding his citations, 
within his initial submission the Petitioner provided evidence from Google Scholar reflecting his 20 
scholarly publications have received 31 cumulative citations. Specifically, the record shows that his 
two most-cited articles at the time of filing received 9 (The Protein Journal) and 6 (Oncogenesis), 
citations, respectively. 7 
Generally, citations to a given article can serve as an indication that the field has taken interest in a 
petitioner's work; however, the fact that a petitioner has published articles that other researchers have 
referenced is not, by itself, sufficient to establish that he meets this criterion. Rather, the appropriate 
analysis is to determine whether a petitioner has shown that his findings, factoring in citations and 
other corroborating evidence, have been considered important at a level consistent with original 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
We acknowledge, however, that a petitioner may present evidence that his articles "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 [his] work as authoritative in the field, may be probative 
of the significance of [his] contributions to the field of endeavor. "8 Here, the Petitioner did not explain 
how the noted citation rates demonstrate that his research was considered to be an original scientific 
contribution of major significance, and the referenced expert opinion letters did not discuss these 
individual publications and their impact within the field. Rather, a review of the submitted articles 
that reference the Petitioner's research does not show the significance of his contributions to the 
overall field beyond the authors who cited to his work. 
For instance, the Petitioner provided an article entitled 
published in Cancers in 2022, in which the authors 
cited to his most-cited article.9 However, the article does not distinguish or highlight the Petitioner's 
written work from that of the other 182 cited papers, or support his claim that his research has had a 
major impact on other researchers. In fact, the authors' citations indicate that the Petitioner's research 
7 The Petitioner's remaining 18 articles each garnered between O and 3 citations. 
8 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(2). 
9 Although we discuss a sample article referencing the Petitioner's work, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
6 
group was one of three groups who have confirmed that increased levels of lwere shown 
to be a marker for nonmetastatic colon cancer. This evidence confirms that others, in the United States 
and abroad, 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 his work on the overall field of oncology rises to the level of an 
original contribution of major significance. 
We also acknowledge the Petitioner's claim that his most-cited work was published in a journal with 
a high ranking based on its impact factor. However, a publication's high ranking or impact is reflective 
of the publication's overall citation rate. It does not demonstrate the influence of any particular author 
within the field, how an author's research impacted the field, or establish a contribution of major 
significance in the field. That context must be provided by other evidence in the record. 
Considered together, the evidence consisting of the citations to the Petitioner's published findings and 
the reference letters from his fellow oncology physicians establishes that the Petitioner has been a 
productive researcher. This evidence also shows that his published data and findings have been relied 
upon by others in their own research, and perhaps impacted treatment protocol in the hospital where he 
is employed. It does not demonstrate that the Petitioner has made an original contribution of major 
significance in the field of oncology. Therefore, he has not met this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria. As a result, we need not provide the type of final 
merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise that we 
have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a finding that the 
Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top. U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services has long held that even athletes performing at the major league level do not 
automatically meet the "extraordinary ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 
(Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner has not shown that the significance of his work is 
indicative of the required sustained national or international acclaim or that it is consistent with a 
"career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. I 01-723, 59 
(Sept. 19, 1990); see also section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise 
demonstrate that the Petitioner is one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field 
of endeavor. See section 203(b )(I )(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The Petitioner has not 
demonstrated his eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for 
the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7