dismissed EB-1A Case: Cancer Research

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF B-C-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 8, 2015 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an individual, seeks classification as an individual "of extraordinary ability" in the 
sciences. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act)§ 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). 
The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the petition. The matter is now before us on appeal. The 
appeal will be dismissed. 
The classification the Petitioner seeks 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 determined that the 
Petitioner had not satisfied the initial evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3), which 
requires documentation of a one-time achievement or evidence that meets at least three of the ten 
regulatory criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a statement with additional and previously submitted materials. For 
the reasons discussed below, we agree that the Petitioner has not established his eligibility for the 
classification sought. Specifically, the Petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence of a one­
time achievement pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), or documentation that satisfies at least three of 
the ten regulatory criteria set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). As such, the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that he is one of the small percentage who are at the very top in the 
field of endeavor, and that he has sustained national or international acclaim. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2), (3). Accordingly, we will dismiss the Petitioner's appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants who 
are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) 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 
(b)(6)
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized m 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 regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate the foreign national's 
sustained acclaim and the recognition of the individual's achievements in the field through evidence of 
a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If a petitioner does not 
submit this documentation, then that petitioner must submit sufficient qualifYing evidence that meets at 
least three of the ten categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
The submission of evidence relating to at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, 
establish eligibility for this classification. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9111 Cir. 2010) 
(discussing a two-part review where the evidence is first counted and then, if satisfying the required 
number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination). See also Rijal v. USCJS, 
772 F.Supp.2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011) (affirming our proper application of Kazarian), aff'd, 683 
F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F.Supp.3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013) (finding that 
we appropriately applied the two-step review); Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 
201 0) (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"). 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria1 
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 specification for which classffication is sought. 
The Director determined the Petitioner met the requirements of this criterion. The Petitioner has 
submitted sufficient evidence, including his appointment as the Review Editor of . 
, as well as his peer review duties for two scholarly journals to establish that he meets 
this criterion. 
1 We have reviewed all of the evidence the petitioner has submitted and will address those criteria the 
petitioner claims to meet or for which the petitioner has submitted relevant and probative evidence. 
2 
(b)(6)
Evidence of the alien's original scienttfic, scholarly. artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the.field. 
The plain language of this regulatory criterion requires that the contributions not only be original, but 
rise to the level of major significance in the field as a whole. 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). 
Contributions of major significance connotes that the Petitioner's work has significantly impacted the 
field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v); see also Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 135-136. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not meet the requirements of this criterion. On appeal 
the Petitioner states that the Director did not consider the documents the Petitioner submitted in 
response to the request for evidence (RFE). That evidence is comprised of his citations, including one 
book and five review articles; his patents; his studies resulting in published articles; and the reference 
letters. 
First, the Petitioner's RFE response included a map indicating that citations to his work originated from 
numerous countries, as well as five review articles and one book chapter as evidence pertaining to 
citations. While the Petitioner submitted an abstract from the book chapter, the record does not contain 
evidence that this chapter cites to the Petitioner's work. 
The Petitioner indicates that the citing review articles affirm the importance of his biomarker research 
relating to several types of cancer diagnoses. He provides two quotes from the review article titled, 
' " The authors of this review article are 
associated with the The first quote relies on two articles, one of which the 
Petitioner authored, for the proposition that is associated with the promotion of 
The second quote is the review article's closing paragraph and relates to all25 of the citations within the 
review article. The Petitioner discusses the review article as follows: "As we knew, 
is the primary agency of the United States government responsible for biomedical and health­
related research and is the largest biomedical research institution in the world. Taken together, these 
subjective evidences [sic] supported [that] I [have] made a contribution of major significance to the 
field of cancer research." The review article itself, however, does not reflect that the authors found the 
Petitioner's work of such value that they discuss his work extensively. The remaining four review 
articles do not single out the Petitioner's work from the other recent research cited. 
That researchers from multiple countries cite to the Petitioner's work demonstrates that international 
sources have noticed and referenced his work. Another factor in considering the impact of the 
Petitioner's research is the number and nature of the citations themselves. Initially, the Petitioner 
submitted evidence from Google Scholar reflecting the number of citations his published articles have 
garnered. Although his 2008 articles in . . relating to received 50 citations as of 
the date of filing, the record lacks evidence that this number is indicative of a significant influence 
within the field. The record includes the citation numbers for other miicles in the field that have 
garnered far more citations during the same period. For example, a 2008 article entitled " 
"appearing in had received 253 citations as 
of the date of filing. 
3 
---- ---- ------- ------------------------------
(b)(6)
A patent affords the patentee "the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or 
selling the invention throughout the United States or importing the invention into the United 
States, and, 
if the invention is a process, of the right to exclude others from using, offering for sale or selling 
throughout the United States, or importing into the United States, products made by that process." See 
35 U.S.C. § 154. While a patent affirms the originality ofthe innovation, it does not establish the level 
of the impact in the field. The Petitioner initially included a March 12, 2012, letter from 
of the , indicating that the Petitioner's provisional patent application 
had been filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. In response to the RFE, the Petitioner 
provided additional information relating to the patent, transgenic lymphoma mouse model, from 
the website of which 
includes the advantages of the invention, but does not explain how it is already impacting the field. For 
example, the materials do not suggest that is marketing the model or that another entity has 
licensed the right to do so. The Petitioner also submitted evidence that the 
funded the Petitioner's research on . While a grant of funding demonstrates 
that the foundation finds the proposed research promising, it does not establish the ultimate impact of 
the completed research. 
The Petitioner also discusses a second study that the funded, which resulted in another published 
article. Although the Petitioner submitted evidence demonstrating that the journals require original 
research results, he does not offer evidence demonstrating that the findings from this second study 
constitute contributions of major significance in the field beyond the incremental progress offered 
through original scientific research. General contributions of original research that are inherent to one's 
occupation do not demonstrate that the Petitioner's contributions are of major significance in the field. 
Additionally, the Petitioner asserts that his presentations at an international conference and published in 
the conference proceedings contribute to his eligibility under this criterion. This evidence shows that 
the Petitioner has disseminated his work. The Petitioner has not, however, demonstrated the impact of 
his findings after dissemination to the field at the conference. 
On appeal, the Petitioner indicates that the Director did not consider the reference letters. The 
Petitioner initially submitted letters from Dr. and Dr. faculty at Sun 
where the Petitioner obtained his Ph.D. Both letters praised the Petitioner's skills 
acquired at the University, but did not explain how his work there has already impacted the field. Dr. 
, Chief of the and , explained 
the details of the Petitioner's research with and its applicability to 
angiogenesis in tumors, concluding that the Petitioner's research "will lead to novel approaches against 
cardiovascular diseases and tumor and have positive impact on these diseases." Dr. did not, 
however, identify how the Petitioner's work on' has already impacted the field. 
Dr. the Director for the at 
explained the Petitioner's findings while working in Dr. laboratory. He stated that the Petitioner 
identified novel signaling pathways that are associated with immune system development and 
tumorigenesis that, once completed, "could be a major contribution to the field." That the Petitioner 
will provide a prospective benefit to the United States as a permanent resident is a requirement of the 
4 
(b)(6)
statute. See section 203(b )(1 )(A)(iii) of the Act. This criterion, however, requires that the Petitioner 
have already made contributions of major significance in the field, however, Dr. did not identify 
how the Petitioner has already accomplished that level of achievement. Similarly, Dr. 
Director of at the 
in Georgia, discussed the importance of new therapies for lymphoma 
and concluded that the Petitioner's "continuing research in elucidating the mechanism of and 
lymphogenesis will definitely benefit the national interest of the United States." 
Dr. , Director of asset1ed that the Petitioner is an 
extraordinary researcher who has demonstrated critical and original contributions to the study of 
hematology and oncology. Dr. indicated the Petitioner is the first to demonstrate that a 
gene chromosome, can promote lymphomagenesis based on genomic background and that 
funded the Petitioner's research in this area. Although Dr. confirmed the Petitioner was the first 
to demonstrate such a finding, he did not identify the manner in which this original finding was of major 
significance in the field. Dr. affirmed that the studies "simulated by these observation[s] may 
well accelerate research leading to treatment for these diseases." Finally, Dr. discussed the 
Petitioner's reputation, but offered no examples of how the Petitioner has contributed to the field in a 
major and significant manner. The reference letters submitted by the Petitioner do not provide specific 
examples of how the Petitioner's work has significantly impacted the field at large or otherwise 
constitutes original contributions of major significance. 
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has stated that testimony should not be disregarded simply 
because it is "self-serving." See, e.g., Matter of S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 1328, 1332 (BIA 2000) (citing 
Matter of M-D-, 21 I&N Dec. 1180 (BIA 1998); Afatter ofY-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998); Matter 
ofDass, 20 I&N Dec. 120 (BIA 1989); see also A1atter ofAcosta, 19 I&N Dec. 211, 218 (BIA 1985)). 
The Board clarified, however: "We not only encourage, but require the introduction of corroborative 
testimonial and documentary evidence, where available." Matter of S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. at 1332. If 
testimonial evidence lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for a petitioner to 
submit corroborative evidence. Y-B-, 21 I&N Dec. at 1136. 
Solicited letters from local colleagues that do not specifically identify contributions or provide specific 
examples of how those contributions influenced the field are insufficient. Kazarian v. USCIS. 580 F.3d 
1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009) aff'd in part 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). In 2010, the Kazarian com1 
affirmed that "letters from physics professors attesting to [that Petitioner's] contributions in the field" 
were insufficient. 596 F.3d at 1122. The opinions of expet1s in the field are not without weight and 
have been considered above. While such letters can provide important details about the Petitioner's 
skills, they cannot form the cornerstone of a successful extraordinary ability claim. USCIS may, in its 
discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron 
International, 19I&NDec. 791, 795(Comm'r 1988). 
However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding the Petitioner's 
eligibility for the benefit sought. Id The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is 
not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether 
they support the Petitioner's eligibility. See id. at 795; 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" but rather 
(b)(6)
is admissible only if it will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in 
issue). users may even give less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated, in accord with other 
information or is in any way questionable. Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. at 795; see also Matter ~f 
Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter ofTr easure Crqft ~[California, 14 
I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). See also Visinscaia, 4 F.Supp.3d at 134-35 (concluding that 
USCIS' decision to give limited weight to uncorroborated assertions from practitioners in the field was 
not arbitrary and capricious). While letters authored in support of the petition have probative value, 
they are most persuasive when supported by evidence that already existed independently in the public 
sphere. As the supporting evidence, including citations and patent applications, are not indicative of the 
Petitioner's influence, the Petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language 
requirements of this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The Director determined the Petitioner met the requirements of this criterion. The evidence includes the 
Petitioner' s scholarly articles published in internationally circulated scholarly journals in his academic 
field; for example, This authorship establishes that the Petitioner meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
A leading role should be apparent by its position in the overall organizational hierarchy and its matching 
duties. A critical role is evident from the Petitioner's impact on the organization or the establishment 's 
activities. The Petitioner's petfmmance is a factor in whether the role was critical for the organization 
or establishment as a whole. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not meet the requirements of this criterion. Regarding 
the Petitioner's role at the Director's decision advised the Petitioner that his title at was not 
sufficient to demonstrate his eligibility under this criterion without additional evidence of his duties and 
the actual role he performed for this organization. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he performs in a 
leading or critical role for through his appointment as an assistant professor, his work with the 
clinical and translational research programs, and as a group leader at the 1 
He also relies on his work with the at 
The letters the Petitioner references from relate to his employment as a postdoctoral fellow or as 
an assistant professor. The evidence does not specify how these positions fit within the hierarchy of the 
university or how he contributed to the organization in a way that is significant to the organization's 
outcome. See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, at 135. Specifically, Dr. letter did not provide an 
explanation of how the Petitioner's performance for the 
laboratory or for the university was critical such that it had an impact on the success of either 
entity beyond the understandable need for competent and skilled researchers. Dr. only offers that 
he is very satisfied and greatly impressed with the Petitioner's work. Another faculty member , 
Dr. Assistant Professor at the 
(b)(6)
indicated in his letter that the economic impact of the Petitioner's work is important and that the 
Petitioner is playing a pivotal role in a key research program bringing advances in lymphoma research. 
Dr. did not suggest the manner in which the Petitioner's work has resulted in a measurable level 
of success for the laboratory or the university. 
The Petitioner also asserts he "provided subjective evidences" of his contributions to the success of 
. Specifically, the Petitioner indicates he was the first and only person to receive grant support 
from the in the He also asserts that because of this funding , 
he was appointed as the leader of the department of cancer research team. First, regarding the 
distinguished reputation of , the Petitioner provided evidence deriving from Wikipedia. With 
regard to information from Wikipedia, there are no assurances about the reliability of the content from 
this open, user-edited Internet site.2 See Lamilem Badasa v. Michael Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909 (8th Cir. 
2008). Regardless, the Petitioner has not documented a leading or critical role for · The Petitioner 
included an October 16, 20 12 letter from Dr. who, prior to his work at also served as 
Director of Dr. letter confirmed the Petitioner's promotion to Vice Director of 
The job description consists of supervising the efforts of an eight-member staff and being responsible 
for directing the staffs efforts . The letter did not specify the number of teams or vice directors at 
The Petitioner also did not corroborate the importance of the grant for the university 
with supporting documentation . He has not provided evidence of the duties he actually performed once 
promoted to Vice Director of the , nor did he provide evidence that describes how his 
performance in this role was critical to the success of the university as a whole. While he may have 
played leading role for the eight-member team at the Petitioner has not demonstrated that this 
team enjoys a distinguished reputation independent of the university. The Petitioner has not submitted 
evidence that meets the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
B. Summary 
For the reasons discussed above, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not submitted the 
requisite initial evidence, in this case, evidence that satisfies three of the ten regulatory criteria. 
2 Online content from Wikipedia is subject to the following general disclaimer: 
WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY. Wikipedia is an online open­
content collaborative encyclopedia, that is, a voluntary association of individuals and groups 
working to develop a common resource of human knowledge. The structure of the project 
allows anyone with an Internet connection to alter its content. Please be advised that nothing 
found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide 
you with complete, accurate or reliable information. . . . Wikipedia cannot guarantee the 
validity of the information found here. The content of any given a1ticle may recently have 
been changed, vandalized or altered by someone whose opinion does not correspond with the 
state of knowledge in the relevant fields. 
See http://en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Wikipedia:General disclaimer, accessed on August 28, 2015, a copy of 
which is incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
.., 
III. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the Petitioner has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of his or her field of endeavor. 
Had the Petitioner submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary categories, in 
accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the Petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a 
"level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the 
very top of the field of endeavor," and (2) "that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. As the Petitioner has not done so, the 
proper conclusion is that the Petitioner has failed to satisfY the antecedent regulatory requirement of 
presenting evidence that satisfied the initial evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3) 
and (4). 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 evidence in the aggregate supports a 
finding that the Petitioner has not demonstrated the level of expertise required for the classification 
sought.3 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is a petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of 
Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, the Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofB-C-, ID# 12974 (AAO Sept. 8, 2015) 
3 We maintain de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. United States Dep 't of Justice, 
381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). In any future proceeding, we maintain the jurisdiction to conduct a final 
merits determination as the office that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.5(a)(1 )(ii); see 
also INA§§ 103(a)(l), 204(b); DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March I, 2003); 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 
(2003); 8 C.F.R. § I 03.1 (f)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of Aurelio, 19 I&N Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987) (holding that 
legacy INS, now USCIS, is the sole authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa petitions).