dismissed EB-1A Case: Chemistry

11:s. CifiZ®ship · 
and Immigfation . 
Se:rvices: 
MATTER OF C-L-B-
Non-Precedent Decision of tb.e 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DA TE: MAR. 4, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a chemist, seeks classification as ~n .individual of extraordinary ability in the sciences. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the A~t) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). This 
first preference classification makes imrpigrant 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 Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had satisfied only two of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, of 
which he must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional documentation and a brief, arguing that he meets at least 
three of the ten criteria. · · 
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 m the area of 
I 
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 
.
Matter ofC-L-B-
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate a orie-time achievement (that is, a major, 
internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, then he or she must 
provide documentatio .n 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). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner to submit comparable 
material if he or she is 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 ," a~ 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 l&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a senior scientist at lllinois. Because he 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) . ln denying the petition, 
the Director found that the Petitioner met only two of the initial evidentiary criteria, judging under 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and scholarly articles under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). The record reflects 
that the Petitioner served as a peer reviewer of manuscripts for a journal. In addition, he authored 
scholarly articles in professional publications . Accordingly, we agree with the Director that the 
Petitioner fulfilled the judging and scholarly articles criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he meets two additional criteria, discussed below . We have 
reviewed all of the evidence in the record and conclude that it does not support a finding that the 
Petitioner satisfies the requirements of at least three criteria. 
Evidence of the alien ·s original scient(fic, scholarly, artistic. athletic. or business-related 
contributions of major sign(ficance 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 riot 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 
2 
.
Matter ofC-L-B-
field, have remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major 
significance in the field. Here, we will address the Petitioner's arguments on appeal and determine 
whether he has shown original contributions of major significance in the field consistent with this 
regulatory criterion. 
The Petitioner contends that Director applied "an improper comparison between [his] citatory history 
and the citatory histories of others in his field." 1 Moreover, the Petitioner argues that the Director 
"implemented a novel evidentiary requirement: that [his] .aggregate citation count be the primary 
qualifier by which [he] satisfies ·this criterion." In general, the comparison of the Petitioner's 
cumulative citations to others in the field, as well as other overall impact indices, is often more 
appropriate in determining whether the record shows sustained national or international acclaim and 
demonstrates that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field ofendeavor in a final 
merits determination if the Director determined he met at least three of the regulatory criteria. See 
Kazarian 596 F.3d at l l'l 5. However, the comparison of citations to a particular scientific article may 
be relevant for this criterion in order to establish the overall field's general view of a contribution of 
major significance.2 · 
Again, this criterion requires the Petitioner to establish that he has made original contributions of major 
significance in the field. Thus, the burden is on the Petitioner to identify his original contributions and 
explain why they are of major significance to the field. The Petitioner submits his updated citation 
history from Google Scholar reflecting that his highest cited article received 
66 citations, as well as his second highest article garnered 36 citations. Here, 
the Petitioner does not articulate the significance or relevance of these numbers. 3 Although his 
citations are indicative that his research has received some attention from the field, the Petitioner did 
not demonstrate that his citation numoers to his individual articles represent niajorly significant 
contributions to the field.4 Generally, citations can serve as an indication that the field has taken 
interest in a petitioner's work. However, the Petitioner has not sufficiently identified the specific 
1 For instance, the Director compared the Petitioner's total citations (227), h-index (8), and i I 0-index (8) to the authors of 
his recommendation letters : (11 , 185 total citations , 58 h-index, and 235 i I 0-index) , (75,906 
total citations , 34 h-index , and 850 i I 0-index), (I , 120 total citations , 15 h-index , and 20 i I 0-index) , 
(3,184 citations, 34 h-index , and 76 i I 0-index) , and :31,407 citations , 78 h-index , and 3 I 3 i I 0-
index). 
2 See USCIS 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-/4 8-9 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www .uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html; see also Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 (upholding 
a finding that a ballroom dancer had not met this criterion because she did not corroborate her impact in the field as a 
whole). 
3 The record contains screenshots from Google Scholar for his recommenders showing that their individual articles 
garnered citations in the hundreds and thousands; for example, highest article received 3,119 citations. 
4 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1 , supra, at 8-9 (providing an example that peer-reviewed articles in 
scholarly journals that 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 the individual ' s work as authoritative in the field, may 
be probative of the significance ofthe person's contributions to the field ofendeavor). 
3 
.
Matter ofC-L-B- · 
contributions he has made through his written work, nor has he shown that his citations for any of his 
published articles are commensurate with contributions of major significance. 
In addition, the Petitioner provides data from Clarivate Analytics regarding baseline citation rates and 
percentiles by year of publication for various research fields, including chemistry. Further, the 
Petitioner presents a document that appears to be ~elf-compiled regarding his citation·count percentiles 
and paper count percentiles. The Petitioner claims that the data was derived from "Microsoft 
Research" and compares his res~arch impact to that of other researchers in chemistry. Moreover, the 
Petitioner asserts that all nine of his papers "rank among the top 1 % or top 10% most cited in his field 
for its respective year of publication." 
The comparative ranking to baseline or average citation rates, however, does not automatlcally 
establish rnajorly significant contributions to the field. 5 Once again, the issue for this criterion is 
whether the Petitioner has made original contributions of major significance in the field rather than 
where his citation rates rank among others in his field. Here , a more appropriate analysis , for example , 
would be to compare the Peti6oner's citations to other similarly , highly cited articles that the field 
views as having been of major significance , as well as factoring in other corroborating evidence. 
Publications and presentations are not sufficient under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that 
they were of"major significance." See Kazarian v. USCIS. 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009), a.ff'd 
in part, 596 F .3d 1115. The Petitioner has not demonstrated, as he asserts, that every article he has 
authored and published resulted in an original contribution of major significance in the field. 
Further; the Petitioner indicates that he submitted "at least 20 representative examples of independent 
scientific articles that cited [his] research in ways that show the substantial impact that his impact that 
his work has exerted on the field of chemistry ." A review of the sample articles, though, do i:iot show 
the significance of the Petitioner's research to the overall field beyond the authors who cited to his 
· work. For instance, the Petitioner provided a partial article entitled, " 
"(Journal of Pharmaceutical and 
Biomedical Analysis), in which the authors cited to his article.6 However, 
the article does not distinguish or highlight the Petitioner's written work from the over hundred other 
cited papers. In the case here, the Petitioner has not shown that his published articles through citations 
rise to a level of "major significance" consistent with this regulatory criterion . 
In addition, the Petitioner argues that his work has been funded by the 
, and the record contains his article that acknowledged funding for 
the research by Receiving funding to conduct research is not a contribution of major 
significance in-and-of-itself. Rather, the Petitioner must establish: that receiving grants or other similar 
funding are reflective of his past works' major significance, or that his Te search conducted with the 
5 For instance, according to the date from Clarivate Analytics, chemistry papers published in 2016 receiving only nine 
citations and in 2018 receiving only three citations are in the top I 0%. The Petitioner has not demonstrated that papers 
with such citation counts have necessarily had a major, significant impact or influence in the field as evidenced by being 
among the top I 0% ofmpst ·highly cited articles according to year of publication. 
6 Although we discuss a sample article, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 
.
Matter ofC-L-B-
funding resulted in contributions of major significance. Here, while the Petitioner's research for the 
journal article was funded by , he did not demonstrate that his findings described in the paper 
caused a major, significant contribution. In addition, he did not show how the funding 
reflected the importance of his contributions to the overall field: 
Moreover, the Petitioner contends that his results have been patented and commercialized by 
The Petitioner submitted a letter (rom holding an unidentified position at 
who confirmed that the company obtained a patent resulting from the Petitioner's work. A patent 
recognizes the originality of an invention or idea but does not necessarily establish it as a contribution 
of major significance in the field. Further, although claimed that the Petitioner's "research 
has been extremely important to the advancement of this project," he did not further elaborate or 
explain the impact or influence on the greater field. 
In addition, the Petitioner claims that his technology has been implemented by and 
However, he presented a letter from . senior scientist at , who 
stated that he is "currently exploring the findings of [the Petitioner's] experience in assessing the 
chemical purity of inve?tigational drugs in early stages of development." The Petitioner also offered 
a letter from senior scientist at who indicated that he has 
"implemented his approach in [his] forthcoming paper." The letters speculate on. the potential 
influence and on the possibility of being majorly significant at some point in the future. While the 
letters show interest in the Petitioner's research, they do not establish how his work already qualifies 
_ as contributions of major significance in the field, rather than prospective, potential impacts. Here, 
the significant nature of his research has yet to be determined or measured. Further, the fact that 
companies have expressed interest in the Petitioner's research is not necessarily evidence showing that 
the overall field views his findings of having been greatly irifluential. 
The Petitioner's letters do not contain specific, detailed information explaining the unusual influence 
or high impact his research has had on the overall field. Letters that specifically articulate how a 
.petitioner's contributions are of major significance to the field and its impact on subsequent work add 
value. 7 On the other hand, 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. 8 
Moreover, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory statements. 1756 .. Inc. v. The US Ally Gen., 
745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
For the reasons discussed above, considered both individually and collectively, the Petitioner has not 
shown that he has made original contributions of major significance in the field. 
7 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9. 
8 Id. at 9. See also Kazarian, 580 F.3d at I 036, aff'd in part 596 F.3d at 1115 (holding that letters that repeat the regulatory 
language but do not explain how an individual's contributions have already influenced the field are insufficient to establish 
original contributions of major significance in the field). · 
5 
Matter ofC-L-B-
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signfficantly high remuneration for 
. services, in relation to others in the.field 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). · 
In order to fulfill this criterion, a petitioner must demonstrate that he commands a high salary or other 
significantly high remuneration for services in relation to others in his field.: He references a 
previously submitted letter from his employer indicating th~t he earns $107,000 per year as a "Senior 
Scientist 1 Chemistry." In addition, the Petitioner provided a screenshot from bis.gov reflecting that 
mean annual wage for chemists is $80,820, and the median annual wage is $73,740, with $100,630 in 
the 75th percentile and $129,670 in the 90th percentile. 
The Petitioner, however, did not provide comparative wage data of-other senior chemistry scientists 
rather than the general occupation of chemists. See Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. 
Comm'r 1994) (considering a professional golfer's earnings versus other PGA Tour golfers); see also 
Grimson v. INS, 934 F. Supp. 965, 968 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (considering NHL enforcer's salary versus 
other NHL enforcers); Muni v. INS, 891 F. Supp. 440, 444-45 (N. D. lll. 1995) (comparing salary of 
NHL defensive player to salary of other NHL defensemen). Regardless, even considering the average 
wages of chemists, the Petitioner's wages are not at the hi.gher end of the scale, such as chemists in 
the 90th percentile who ~am $129,670 per year. As such, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he 
commands a high salary consistent with the regulatory criterion. 
IIL 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 pr.ovide 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 ·requ°fred 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. 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. at 954. Here, the Petitioner has not shown that the 
significance ofl].is work is indicative of the required sustained.national or international acclaim orthat 
it is consistent with 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 has garnered national or international acclaim in the field, 
and he is one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that he qualifies for classification as an 
individual of extraordinary ability. 
9 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 11. 
6 
Matter ofC-L-B-
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofC-L-B~, ID# 2255246 (AAO Mar. 4, 2019)