dismissed EB-1A Case: Cell Biology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF C-R-G-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. 7, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a 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. § 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 the Petitioner had 
satisfied only two of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, of which he must meet at least three. The 
Petitioner then filed a combined motion to reopen and reconsider. The Director granted the motion to 
reopen, considered new evidence, and denied the petition a second time on the same grounds. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he meets at least three of the ten criteria. 
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. 
Matter of C-R-G-
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 two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. A petitioner can either demonstrate a one-time achievement (that is, a major, 
internationally recognized award), or provide 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 qualifying awards, published 
material in certain media, and scholarly articles). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a 
petitioner to submit comparable material if they are able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not readily apply to the individual's occupation. 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) 
( discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the 
required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we 
examine "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and 
within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably 
true." Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Initial Evidence 
The Petitioner is currently employed as a research scientist/life science research professional 3 at 
I luniversity,I I Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that 
he has received a major, internationally recognized award, 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 only two of the initial evidentiary criteria, relating to judging the work of others 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and publication of scholarly articles under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
We find that the Petitioner has satisfied a third claimed criterion, relating to contributions of major 
significance under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The satisfaction of three criteria would ordinarily trigger a final merits determination. We find, 
however, that the record does not support the Director's finding that the Petitioner has participated as 
a judge of the work of others. As such, the record does not warrant a foll review of the totality of the 
evidence in the context of a final merits determination below. Nevertheless, because there have been 
positive findings regarding three criteria at different points in this proceeding, we will briefly explain 
some issues that would have been of concern in a final merits determination. 
Evidence of the individual's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) 
2 
Matter of C-R-G-
The Petitioner satisfied this criterion with his initial submission, which identified three such articles 
published in 2010, 2011, and 2017, respectively. Subsequently, the Petitioner showed that additional 
articles exist. 
Evidence of the individual's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions o_f major significance in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
In order to satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner must establish that not only has 
he made original contributions, but that they have been of major significance in the field. 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. 
Much of the record revolves around this criterion, because it is the only one of the initially claimed criteria 
for which the Director found the Petitioner's evidence to be deficient. The Petitioner submitted letters 
from researchers at various institutions, praising the PetitioTr' s pj8t research and the published articles 
it generated. An illustrative example is from a professor at University inl !Germany, who 
stated: 
The research work [the Petitioner] has carried out is highly important. ... [I]t has focused 
on the vital but hitherto poorly understood signaling mechanism for regulation of adult 
I I niche in the brain. [The Petitioner's] work has explored how a delicate 
balance is maintained in adult brain .... [S]uch research provides directions for how such 
regulation can be modulated to achieve regeneration in regulated fashion in devastating 
traumatic brain injury, stroke or in neurodegenerative conditions like Alzheimer's disease 
or Parkinson's disease[]. 
Other researchers indicated that the Petitioner's work provided important clues in the search for adult 
.__ _____ _., which could have major therapeutic implications. 
Accordingly, we find that the Petitioner has satisfied this criterion. 
Evidence of the individual's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work 
of others in the same or an allied field o_f specification for which classification is sought. 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) 
The Director found that the Petitioner had satisfied this criterion by establishing his membership on the 
editorial boards of two journals. The record, however, does not show that the Petitioner had actually 
participated as a judge on either board. 
The Petitioner became an associate editor of the m 
January 2018, three months before he filed the petition. He joined the editorial board of the~--....,,......... 
'-----------~ in September 2016. However, the record does not include documentary 
evidence (such as manuscripts, referrals, or acknowledgments of receipt of reviews) to show that the 
Petitioner had reviewed any manuscripts for either journal, or otherwise judged the work of others in the 
3 
Matter of C-R-G-
same or an allied field in this editorial role. Because the regulation requires "participation ... as a judge," 
rather than simply being in a position to act as a judge, the Petitioner's editorial board memberships 
cannot, by themselves, suffice to meet this criterion. 1 
B. Sustained Acclaim 
As detailed above, we find that the Petitioner has not met the requisite three evidentiary criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). However, because the Petitioner has been notified, at various times, that he 
has satisfied the requisite three evidentiary criteria, we will explain why he has not demonstrated, by 
a preponderance of the evidence, his sustained national or international acclaim and has not shown 
that he is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. 
The Petitioner contends that the Director erred by referring to the Petitioner's field as "cell biology" and, 
as a result, unfairly comparing the Petitioner to experts outside of his research specialty. Asserting that 
his "area of expertise" is a "niche field" within cell biology, the Petitioner stated: "I am not attempting to 
prove myself as [being in the] top 1 % in cell biology field but rather that I am one among the top or the 
top and unique in the niche field of 'I I and neurodegenerative diseases, 
like Alzheimer and Parkinson's diseases."' The Petitioner thus acknowledges that cell biology is a 
"field," which is the statutory term; the statute and regulations do not permit the exclusion of most 
members of a field in order to focus on a much narrower "niche field."2 Also, the Petitioner asserted that 
his works "have found ... utility in [the] wide[ r] biomedical field, far beyond [the] focused field of [his] 
expertise." Having asserted that his work has wider applications, he cannot exclude the other researchers 
using his work from what he defines as his field. 
While researchers have praised the Petitioner's findings, the impact of his work largely traces back to 
one article he published in 2010. The Petitioner has published other articles since then, but he has not 
shown that they have made a similar impression on the field. Whatever the reception of the Petitioner's 
2010 article, it alone is not indicative of a pattern of sustained acclaim. 3 Similarly, the Petitioner 
received several invitations to visit and speak at various research institutions in the spring of 2011, but 
this appears to have been a one-time burst of attention that did not continue. 4 
1 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with certain 1-140 Petitions, 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJ 1-14. 6 (Dec. 22, 2010). 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html (noting that an invitation to judge is insufficient without 
evidence of actual participation as a judge.) 
2 The Petitioner submitted a table of citation rates, categorized by "Research Fields." The Petitioner's work fell in the 
"Research Field" of"Biology & Biochemistrf" The Petitioner submitted no evidence that any objective source considers 
the study of'1 and neurodegenerative diseases" to be its own distinct field. 
3 In later submissions, the Petitioner has discussed a 2018 article concerning cells in the liver, but this is outside of his self­
described narrow research focus on the brain. His principal contribution to this article appears to have been breeding 
genetically engineered mice. The a1iicle appears to have been published days before the petition's filing date, but it did 
not feature in the Petitioner's initial submission. 
4 The record lacks background information about the purpose and origin of the invitations. We note that the four submitted 
invitations are broadly similar in format. One of the messages referred to earlier "communications" that are absent from 
the record, and therefore we cannot determine whether the institutions (all in the United States) invited the Petitioner on 
their own initiative. or the Petitioner solicited the invitations for employment purposes. One of the inviting institutions 
wa~I lwhich hired him soon after his visit. 
4 
Matter of C-R-G-
The Director concluded that the Petitioner's overall track record does not measure up to those of 
leading figures in the field. Some of the evidence the Director cited to support this conclusion derived 
from outside the record, but there are some internal indications such as statements within the submitted 
letters, indicating that the authors' published works have earned hundreds or thousands of citations, 
compared to about 100 citations to the Petitioner's work at the time of filing (mostly to one article). 
The Petitioner asserted that those individuals have more experience in the field, and the Petitioner has 
not had as much time to amass a comparable record. However, in reviewing the totality of the 
evidence, we compare the petitioner's stature in his field to that of all others, regardless of age or 
experience, to determine whether he is one of that small percentage at the very top of his field. 
We have already explained that the Petitioner's editorial board memberships do not establish that he 
actually judged the work of others. Even if such evidence were available, however, the Petitioner has 
not established that the two documented memberships are indicative of acclaim or place the Petitioner 
at the top of his field. In general, peer review is a routine activity among academic researchers, rather 
than a privilege reserved for the elite. Here, the Petitioner has not submitted evidence showing that 
either the nature of his membership on the editorial board for these particular journals, or the reputation 
of the journals themselves, demonstrates acclaim beyond that received by those performing ( or invited 
to perform) typical peer review duties. 
The Petitioner did not submit evidence to establish how he became a member of the two editorial 
boards named above. Furthermore, the Petitioner did not establish the reputations of the two 
publishers ~ ~; that information would be relevant when gauging the 
Petitioner's standing in his field. The materials from! I contain anomalies of grammar and 
punctuation. An email message from that publisher, notifying the Petitioner of his acceptance onto 
the board, contains irregularities such as multiple exclamation points in a row and, in the contact 
information, an incorrectly formatted mailing address. The certificate of membership in the editorial 
board shifts from third person to second person, and uses the word "enumeration" when the intended 
word appears to be "remuneration." These anomalies are of particular concern coming from a 
publisher whose work revolves around the printed word. 
For the above reasons, the Petitioner has not established sustained national or international acclaim in 
his field, or shown that he is among the small percentage at the very top of that field. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. In visa petition proceedings, it is the 
petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofC-R-G-, ID# 5937976 (AAO Nov. 7, 2019) 
5