dismissed EB-1A Case: Chemical Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 16066129 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 18, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a chemical engineer, 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. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to individuals 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 criteria 
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 
The Petitioner earned ~raduate degrees at the State University 
2019, he has worked atl I, in 0-1 nonimm~i_g_ra_n_t-st_a_tu_s __ 1,-------~ 
Since 
The Petitioner states that 
his work entails "the develo ment of ' reen ' organic compounds 
used widely in th ~-----------~ products industries." His title a~ l"Product 
Manager, R&D Water Quality." 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or shown that he 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). The Petitioner initially claimed to have satisfied four of these criteria, summarized below: 
• (iii), Published material about the individual in professional or major media; 
• (iv), Participation as a judge of the work of others; 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance; and 
• (vi), Authorship of scholarly articles. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner met two of the criteria, numbered (iv) and (vi). On appeal, 
the Petitioner asserts that he also meets the criterion numbered (v). The Petitioner does not contest 
the Director's conclusions regarding the criterion numbered (iii), and therefore we consider that issue 
to be abandoned. 2 
1 We acknowledge that 0-1 nonimmigrant status relates to extraordinary ability. Nevertheless, the record of proceeding 
for the approved nonimmigrant petition is not before us, and we cannot determine whether the facts in that case were the 
same as those in the present proceeding, or whether the nonimmigrant petition was approved in error. 
2 See Matter of R-A-M-, 25 T&N Dec. 657, 658 n.2 (BIA 2012) (stating that when a filing party fails to appeal an issue 
addressed in an adverse decision, that issue is waived). See also Sepulveda v. U.S. Att:v Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 
(11th Cir. 2005), citing United States v. Cunningham, 161 F.3d 1343, 1344 (11th Cir. 1998); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-
2 
Upon review of the record, we conclude that the Petitioner has satisfied a third regulatory criterion, as 
explained below. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient#fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
In the denial notice, the Director acknowledged that the Petitioner had made original contributions, but 
concluded that the Petitioner had not shown them to be of major significance in the field. The Petitioner's 
principal argument on appeal is that the Director did not address the Petitioner's response to a request for 
evidence (RFE). The bulk of the appellate brief comprises lengthy quotations from the RFE response. 
The Petitioner states: "It is unclear as to whether Petitioner's 90+ page RFE response was overlooked or 
simply ignored as no comprehensive commentary or analysis is made of the evidence presented therein 
within the denial notice." In the denial notice, the Director quoted, albeit briefly, from eight letters in the 
RFE response, and described the other materials submitted (specifically "an updated citation summary 
[ and] copies of review articles"). These mentions, although not "comprehensive," refute the claim that 
the Director "overlooked or simply ignored" the RFE response. 
Nevertheless, the record shows the significance of the Petitioner's contributions in the area of simplified 
.__ ___ ___.I processes which significantly improved the efficiency of the process while eliminatingLJ 
that otherwise contaminatq..,___,,----,-----,-,--,---.,...IProducts for which purity is an important priority. We will 
not repeat the highly technical details here, but the Petitioner has established, by a preponderance of the 
evidence, that some of his contributions have major significance in the field. 
Therefore, we conclude that the Petitioner's evidence suffices to meet three initial criteria. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
Because the Petitioner submitted the required initial evidence, we will evaluate whether he has 
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, his sustained national or international acclaim and 
that he is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, and that his achievements 
have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. In a final merits determination, 
we analyze a petitioner's accomplishments and weigh the totality of the evidence to determine if their 
successes are sufficient to demonstrate that they have extraordinary ability in the field of endeavor. 
See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 
1119-20. 3 In this matter, we determine that the Petitioner has not established eligibility. 
The satisfaction of three regulatory criteria does not facially establish sustained national or 
international acclaim, because an individual can satisfy some of those criteria in a manner that neither 
CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *1, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept 30, 2011) (plaintiff's claims were abandoned as he failed to 
raise them on appeal to the AAO). 
3 See also USCTS 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 ADI 1-14 4 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/legal-resources/policy-memoranda (stating that USCIS officers should then evaluate the evidence 
together when considering the petition in its entirety to determine if the petitioner has established, by a preponderance of 
the evidence, the required high level of expertise for the immigrant classification). 
3 
reflects prior acclaim nor results in subsequent acclaim. For example, the publication of scholarly 
articles, as described at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), is not a privilege reserved for top researchers. 
Rather, it appears to be routine and expected in many academic disciplines. 
Likewise, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) is broad enough to encompass a wide range of 
activities that involve judging the work of others, whether or not such judging entails, or results from, 
sustained acclaim in the field. Several of the Petitioner's judging activities involve evaluating 
submissions to symposia a~ I Other activities involve reviewing the work of candidates for 
graduate degrees, an activity requiring some level of expertise but which, in the aggregate, is routine 
at countless universities that grant such degrees. Finally, the Petitioner submits a copy of an email 
message inviting him to serve as a reviewer on the editorial board of Science Journal of Chemistry. 
This message does not show that he actually participated as a judge, as the regulation requires; it is 
only an invitation to do so in the future. Furthermore, the record does not establish the reputation of 
the journal or show that its editorial board consists exclusively of acclaimed individuals at the top of 
the field. 
Several of the letters in the record emphasize the Petitioner's citation history. At the time of filing the 
petition, the Petitioner had 157 citations and an h-index of 6, meaning six of his articles had been cited 
at least six times each. The number of citations increased by the time the Petitioner responded to the 
RFE, at which time the Petitioner's former graduate advisor atl lstated: "A citation number 
of 1 78 is an imposing number for a researcher within four years of being a doctor, especially 
considering that [the Petitioner] does not work as a Professor at a University."! • l's former dean 
of the Chemistry faculty states that the Petitioner has amassed "a remarkable [citation] record for a 
researcher of his age." The regulations limit eligibility to the small percentage at the very top of the 
field as a whole, rather than a subset of the field that excludes the most accomplished and experienced 
individuals working in that field. 
The Petitioner's graduate advisor also states: "The impressively high quality of [the Petitioner's] work 
led to the nomination of his thesis as the Best Thesis of the Year 2016 in the field of Chemical 
Engineering." He does not cite any corroborating evidence, or elaborate as to who nominated the 
thesis or the scope of the honor ( e.g., whether consideration was field-wide, or limited to theses at 
I I. Without this information, the assertion that the Petitioner was nominated for a student-level 
prize that he apparently did not receive is of very limited value in this proceeding. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner asserts that "the individuals providing testimony included highly esteemed 
internationally renowned scientists. . . . Surely the information offered by such distinguished 
individuals deserves a more thorough assessment." This is a valid observation as far as it goes, but at 
the same time, it cannot suffice for the Petitioner to show the endorsement of "distinguished 
individuals"; he must show that he has risen to the highest level of distinction himself. 
To establish their credentials, these individuals provide various statistics that invite comparison with 
the Petitioner's own achievements. For instance, the aforementioned professor atl lstates: 
"The international impact of my work can be attested by my 45 h index and over 8,750 citations."D 
I I a senior scientific researcher at the~--------------~ in 
I I Russia, states: "I have published over 302 scientific papers, 17 books and 7 patents; my 
publications have generated 9,211 citations." We would not expect a young researcher to have 
4 
produced the same quantity of articles as a researcher with decades of experience, but the burden is on 
the Petitioner to establish that he has reached the highest levels of recognition in the field regardless 
of age or experience. 
The statute requires "extensive documentation" of sustained acclaim. In this case, the Petitioner relies 
heavily on letters from individuals who describe the Petitioner's work and assert that it has won him 
recognition in the field. Almost all of these individuals have demonstrable ties to the Petitioner, mostly 
through I I Their statements are not first-hand evidence that the Petitioner has earned 
recognition beyond those who have not worked with him. 
An individual who has not worked with the Petitioner is a neurof harmacologist 
who is "currently serving as Founding President ." _ ladds 
that he "was credited with coining the term in 199 5." We note that a 
printout from Wikipedia accompanie ~--~s letter, presumably to est,b)isb bis crrentials. The 
Wikipedia printout is dated July 20, 2020, three days before the date of1 ..... ___ _._ letter, and it 
therefore appears thatl I supplied this printout himself The printout reads, in part: 
"";:I ===.:lo::.:r..:.iiginated the term -----------,,--r-"' ___ ' There is no consensus among 
.... 1 ---~I researchers that empirical evidence exists to justify such a concept. 
I ~ ~ ~ is not a medically recognized disorder: The diagnostic 
validity of LJhas not been recognized by thd !Association in 
its diagnostic manual, th~ I 
'Journal of Reward f eficiencv '\vndrome m1J ~tion 
Science and founded the com an that ublishes it,
1 
__ ----,----,----,,-.,......,.....,..,..---,-----='-- l__Jwas 
also editor-in-chief of 's Journal o Addiction Research & 
Therapy (]ART) from 2013 to 2015. Both,___ ______ __.andl I 
are ... widely regarded as predatory open-access publishers. 
User-edited websites such as Wikipedia are not necessarily authoritative; there are no assurances about 
the reliability of its content. See Badasa v. Mukasey, 540 F .3d 909 (8th Cir. 2008). N evertheles~ the I 
Petitioner's voluntary submission of this printout, ostensibly as supporting evidence to establis 
LJ's credibility and authority, raises questions that the record does not answer. 
.__ ____ _.Is letter also raises questions. 4 He asserts that one factor in the Petitioner's favor is the 
"high ... quantity of [the Petitioner's] publications (~50 publications)," but a Google Scholar printout 
4 An accompanying biographical sketch oti._ ___ _.l concludes with the following passage: 
5 
in the record identifies fewer than 20 scholarly writings by the Petitioner, including journal articles, 
conference presentations, patents, and graduate theses. 
____ ___,,,I's letter also includes this passage: "In 2017, I was on the short list of nominees for the 
~---~lin Chemistry." To support this last claim, the Petitioner submits a copy of an article from 
Che~World in which various third-party institutions speculated about possible winners of the 
2017L__J The record contains no evidence thatl I was formally nominated for the I I 
and no statement from anyone who claims to have nominated! I Nevertheless, the 
Petitioner asserts on appeal that we should give substantial weight to this letter because it is from "a 
I I nominee." 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions 
statements from universities, professional organizations, or other sources submitted in evidence as 
expert testimony. Matter of Caron Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). However, USCIS 
is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding a foreign national's eligibility. 
The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of 
eligibility. Id. USCIS may even give less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated or is in any 
way questionable. Id. 
For the above reasons, while the Petitioner has been involved in important research, he has not 
established significant recognition beyond those who have worked with him at I I and 
elsewhere. Issues with some of the submitted letters, discussed above, diminish their evidentiary 
weight. The record does not establish that the Petitioner has earned sustained national or international 
acclaim. 
III. CONCLUSION 
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 not shown that the recognition of his work is indicative of the required sustained national or 
This passage appears to be an instmction as to how third parties should forma~ Is digitally reproduced signature 
when inserting it into a deurneor w: QQTP that the submitted letter does not conform to these instmctions, as it shows the 
double signature in both ]characters. (The digital signatures on the letter appear to match, exactly, the 
signatures on the biographical sketch.) These circumstances raise qrstions abouf the origin and provenance of the letter, 
which diminish its evidentiary weight. If the instmctions come from . .__ ___ _.himselt: then the letter's deviation from 
those instmctions suogests that someone other thanl , I added the signature to the letter, in which case it is not 
certain tb:a~ : I has seen or otherwise approved the letter. If the instructions are from some other source, then the 
question arises as to why an unnamed third party is in a position to issue instructions as to how to digitally sign letters on 
I ~ behalf. 
6 
international acclaim or demonstrates a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by 
Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section 203(b)(l)(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 )(1 )(A) of the Act 
and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The evidence regarding the Petitioner's reputation is heavily concentrated 
at I [ rather than indicating acclaim throughout the field. As noted above, some of the 
Petitioner's evidence raises questions which diminish the weight we afford that evidence. 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability. The appeal 
will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7