dismissed EB-1A Case: Chemical Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF P-D-A-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY30,2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a researcher in the field of chemical science, seeks classification as an alien 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 record did not 
establish, as required, that the Petitioner had received a major, internationally recognized award or 
satisfied at least three evidentiary criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that he satisfies live of the 
evidentiary criteria in addition to the two criteria that the Director determined he satisfied. 
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 
.
Matter of P-D-A-
sustained acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field thr ough a o ne-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 s uch as awards, 
published material in certain media, and scholarly articles). 
Satisfaction of at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this 
classification. See Kazarian v. USC IS, 596 F .3d I 115 (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 tina! 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.O. Wash. 20 II), a.ff"d, 683 
F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Maller o.fChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (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 tact to be proven is probably true"). Accordingly, where a 
petitioner submits qualifying evidence under at least three criteria, we will determine whether the 
totality of 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a researcher in the field of chemical science. Because he has not indicated or 
established that he has received a major, internationally recognized award, he must m eet at l east 
three of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). In denying the petition, the Director found 
that the Petitioner met two criteria, those concerning the judgin g of the work of others and the 
authorship of scholarly articles. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he satisfies the requirements of five additional evidentiary 
criteria. We have reviewed all of the evidence in the record, and conclude that it does not support a 
finding that the Petitioner satislies the plain language requirements of at least three criteria. 
Documentation (~f the indiv iduat·s receipt of lesser nationally or imernati onally 
recognized prize s or awards fhr excellence in the field (~l endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3 )(i) 
The Director fourid that the award received -by the Petitioner did not 
meet the requireme nts of this criterion because it was based upon the Petitioner's receipt of his Ph.D. 
in materials science from On appeal, the 
Petitioner submits a slightly different translation of this certificate which is not accompanied by the 
required certificate of translation, as well as a letter from District Education Officer, 
of Nepal. This letter describes the as 
"the most top prestigious National Award in the tield of education in Nepal," and states that it 
2 
.
Malter of P-D-A-
"depends on their excellent contribution in education sector," but also that it was awarded based 
upon the Petitioner's "outstanding performanc e in the field of Material Science and Technology." In 
addition to the discrepancy in the name of the award , the 1etter' s inconsistency regarding the basis of 
the award does not allow us to determine that the Petitioner received it based upon excellence in 
chemical science. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by 
independent objective evidence . Any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsi stencies will not 
suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. 
Malter of Ho, I 9 l&N Dec . 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988) . Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's 
proof may, of course, lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the rema ining 
evidence offe red in support of the visa petition. Id. Further, the lack of spec ificit y in the letter does 
not establish that the award was given for excellence in the field of chemical science. 
The Petitioner also submitted three certificates regarding his service as a review er for scientific 
journals. In addition to the previously submitted 
he also submits similar certificates from the 
on appeal. A letter from 
Editor of the states that the Petitioner was selected as the best - . . 
reviewer in 2015 out of a poo l of 35 candidat es. However , the website of the 
includes a link to this journal which indicates that it is no longer published, that the last issue 
of this journal was published in 2012, and that is not listed as an editor'. This 
discrepancy casts significant doubt upon the reliability of this evidence. !d. In addition, the 
certificates from indicate that both 
journals are published by , and appear to be a product of 
As described on website, the cert ificates are posted only to a reviewer's 
profile page , and are used to record and acknowledge the efforts of peer reviewers .2 Given their 
manner of distribution and intent, these certificates do not meet the requirements of this criterion. 
Documentation (?(the individual's membership in associations in the field for which 
class(fication is ought, ·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) 
The Petitioner previously refeJTed to the certitic,ates mentioned above as evidence submitted under 
this criterion , which the Director noted in her reque st for evidence (RFE) only established his role as 
a reviewer for those journals . On appea l, the Petitioner submits a copy of membership card from the 
which confirms that he has been a regular member since 
November 28, 2017, more than one year after the filing of this petition. Eligibility must be 
established at the time of tiling . See 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(l), (12). A petition cannot be approved at 
a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter (~( !zummi, 22 
3 
.
Matter of P-D-A-
l&N Dec. 169, 175 (Comm'r 1998). In addition, even ifthe Petitioner's membership in began 
prior to tiling this petition , the membership requirements cited in the Petitioner's brief do not 
establish that it requires outstanding achievements of regular members . Accordingly , the evidence 
does not establish that the Petitioner satisties this criterion. 
Published material about the individual in professional or major trade publications 
or other major media, relating to the alien's ·work in the jieldfor which c/ass(fication 
is sought. Such evidence shall include the title. date, and author of the rnateria/. and 
any necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
The Petitioner submits a website printout providing information about a scientific conference at 
which he presented an abstract. The printout includes his name and photograph above the title and 
text of this abstract, but provides no other information about him or his work. In addition, there is no 
information in the record which shows that this website is a professional or major trade publication 
or other major media. Thus, the record does not demonstrate the Petitioner's eligibility under 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 of specialization for which 
class~fication is sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) 
The Director found that the Petitioner met the requirements of this criterion based upon the 
certiticates described under the awards criterion above. Despite the noted discrepancy regarding the 
evidence of the Petitioner ' s reviews for the the remaining 
evidence establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the Petitioner meets the requirements 
of this criterion. 
Evidence of the individual's original scienl!fic, scholarly , artiSIIC, a!hletic. or 
business-related contributions of major sign(ficance in the field 8 C.F .R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(v) 
While the Petitioner claims that he did not previously submit evidence under this criterion, on appeal 
he refers to a letter from Chief Operating Officer of which was 
submitted in response to the Director's RFE. refers to a published paper authored by 
the Petitioner , and states that the increased surface area of carbon nanomaterials described in this 
paper '"might be helpful to load drugs for the targeted drug delivery system ." letter 
indicates potential applications of the Petitioner 's research findings , but it does not support a tinding 
that they have already made an impact on other researchers in the field of chemical science or in the 
pharmaceutical industry. 
The Petitioner also submits a letter from 
However , do~s not identify any specific contributions made by the Petitioner to the field 
of chemical science, stating only that the Petitio 'ner's work "is outstanding because it touches upon 
4 
.
Maller of P-D-A-
critical issues while developing a unique and novel framework" without providing additional detail. 
Jn addition , this statement is not supported by documentary evidence in the record. This evidence 
does not establish that the Petitioner satisfied the requirements of this criterion. 
Evidence of the individual's authorship l?[ scholarly articles in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media. 
204.5(h)(3)(vi) 
the .field. in 
8 C.F.R. § 
The Director found that the Petitioner meets this criterion based upon the evidence of his articles 
published in scientific journals and presentation s at scientific conferences. Upon review of the 
record we agree with the Director ' s decision. 
Evidence that the individual has performed in a leading or critical role for 
organizalions or eslablishments that have a distinguished reputalion. 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(viii) 
The Petitioner did not initially claim eligibility under this criterion. On appeal , he resubmits two 
certificates from in Korea, which verify his employment as a 
postdoctoral researcher from May 2011 to July 2014 , a contract for his employment in the same 
position from June 2012 to May 2015, and a letter from in 
Nepal , verifying his employment as a teacher of Chemistry from 1998 to August 2007. 
These 
documents do not describe how the Petitioner played a leading or critical role at these 
institutions, nor does the record include evidence regarding the reputation of these institutions . 
Therefore ,- the Petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The evidence does not establish that the Petitioner received a major, internationally recognized 
award or meets three of the ten evidentiary criteria. As a result, we need not provide the type of final 
merits analysis determination referenced in Kazarian , 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheles s, we advise 
that we have reviewed the record in its entirety , and conclude that it does not support a finding that 
the Petitioner has established the level of expertise required for the classitication sought . For these 
reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that he qualifies for classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Maller of P-D-A-, 10# 1276008 (AAO May 30, 2018) 
5