dismissed EB-1A Case: Chemistry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 6547352 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 23, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner , a chemist, 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 Texas 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 aliens 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 sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of their 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 
they 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 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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
After earninr a PhD in Chemistry froml ~ in 2013, the Petitioner began 
working forL I in lr--'"""==-1-I P_e_nn_s_y-lv_a_n-ia_,_w_h_e_r_e_h_e_i-nt_e_n_d_Js to continue working as a lead 
chemist. 
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). The Petitioner claims to have met four criteria, summarized below: 
• (iv), Participation as a judge of the work of others; 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance; 
• (vi), Authorship of scholarly articles; and 
• (viii), Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments. 
The Director found that the Petitioner met the criteria pertaining to judging and scholarly articles. On 
appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he also meets the other two claimed criteria. 
We have reviewed all of the evidence in the record, and conclude that it does not show that the 
Petitioner satisfies the requirements of at least three criteria. The Petitioner meets only the two criteria 
granted by the Director. We will discuss the other two claimed criteria 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 order to satisfy this criterion, petitioners must establish that not only have they made original 
contributions, but also that those contributions 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. The phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, it has some meaning. See 
Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 51 F. 3d 28, 31 (3rd Cir. 1995) quoted inAPWU 
v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619,626 (2nd Cir. Sep 15, 2003). 
2 
The Petitioner initially submitted letters describing his work at C::J and I I in va~egrees 
of technical detail. We will discuss examples of these letters here. A former colleague atL_J stated 
the following: 
[The Petitioner] wants to exploit the technology ofj I dyes by developing varying 
architectural designs to create bright I I labels for molecular detection and 
cellular imaging. The versions of the tags that he has constructed are structurally sound 
but functionally and srectroscopically flexible. These salient features are crucial ... for 
developing potential _ I therapeutic pathways and high throughput 
compound screening that has a more direct impact on public health care. 
The professor who supervised the Petitioner's doctoral studies at stated that the Petitioner "has 
made significant contributions to the field of molecular diagnostics using.__ ___ _, technology." The 
professor describes the Petitioner's "groundbreaking work" in technical detail, but does not explain how 
that work has influenced the field. The assertion that laterlgradure students have built on the Petitioner's 
work does not show impact beyond that one laboratory at 
The president and chief executive officer (CEO) of1 .... ___ __.lstated that the Petitioner "took the lead" 
on various company drug screening projects. For example: 
.__ ____ ____.I is a receptor forl ~' a growth factor whose mutation 
causes fronto-temporal dementia (FTD) and other neurodegenerative disorders. . . . [The 
Petitioner] created a very sensitive method for measuring thel !interaction as 
a means to screen for compounds that will be therapeutic agents for FTD .... He was 
able to screen some preliminary hits and is currently doing further work to validate those 
hits. 
The Petitioner's other projects involve screening for mutant genes relating to Parkinson's disease, cystic 
fibrosis, and other degenerative diseases. The letter indicates that the Petitioner's work has attracted 
funding in the form of grants and venture capital, but does not explain how the Petitioner's contributions 
have had an impact on the field. The nature of the Petitioner's work contributes to drug discovery, but 
the record does not objectively establish that the Petitioner's efforts have had major significance. 
The director ofthe.__ _______ __,at the University ofl I, a colleague ofl ts 
founder, stated that the Petitioner "managed to revolutionize this drug discovery platform," but the record 
does not show that the Petitioner's methods have been widely adopted or have accelerated drug discovery. 
The submitted letters offer very detailed and technical descriptions of the nature of the Petitioner's work, 
but refer only in general terms to the promise and potential of how that work might be of future benefit. 
The Director advised the Petitioner in a request for evidence: "While the letters of recommendation 
provide detailed information about the research that the beneficiary has conducted ... , they have not 
established that the research achievements have made a major scientific impact." 
In response, the president and CEO ofl O I stated that the Petitioner's "contributions to the 
company have impact across all of our programs. His work has led directly to the discovery of potential 
3 
new drugs to treat Parkinson's disease, Gaucher's disease, and certain forms of Alzheimer's." He also 
stated that the Petitioner's "contributions ... are closely-held trade secrets that will eventually lead to 
patents once the Company advances its drug compounds into clinical trials." 
The Petitioner does not explain how "closely-held trade secrets" already have major significance, while 
they are concealed from everyone else in the field, and before clinical trials have demonstrated the 
effectiveness of the drug candidates. The seriousness or prevalence of a given disease does not convey 
major significance on every secret, untested drug candidate intended to treat that disease. The Petitioner 
submitted background materials about the drug development process, indicating that "thousands and 
sometimes millions of compounds . . . may be screened and assessed . . . only a few of which will 
ultimately receive approval." The materials also indicated that the majority of candidates never reach the 
clinical trial stage, and that "[l]ess than 12% of the candidate medicines that enter clinical testing make it 
to approval." The record does not show that I I has produced any approved drugs, or that any 
of its drug candidates have reached the clinical trial stage. Therefore, it is not evident that the Petitioner 
has made contributions of major significance in this regard. 
The Director concluded that "while the letters provide information about the beneficiary's research and 
original contributions to the field, they have not established that his research achievements have made a 
major significant impact or are of major significance in the field." The Director stated that the potential 
for major significance does not satisfy the regulatory requirements, and found that the Petitioner did not 
submit objective documentary evidence to corroborate the claims in the submitted letters. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that his doctoral research, documented in journal articles and 
conference presentations, "constitute[s] contributions of major significance." The Director 
acknowledged that the Petitioner's scholarly articles satisfy a separate regulatory criterion under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). Although the record includes two articles (published in 2011) that have accumulated 
30 citations, the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that his work has been cited as 
authoritative in the field or has otherwise influenced the field in a significant way. See USCIS Policy 
Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, Evaluation o_f Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM UpdateADl 1-14, 8 (Dec. 22, 
2010), http://www.uscis.gov/legal-resources/policy-memoranda. Generally, citations can serve as an 
indication that the field has taken interest in a petitioner's work; however, the fact that the Beneficiary 
has published articles that other researchers have referenced, is not, by itself: sufficient to establish the 
he meets this criterion. Here, the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to show that his 
doctoral research has provoked widespread commentary or received notice from others in the field at 
a level consistent with "contributions of major significance in the field." The Petitioner also contends 
that the Director did not give sufficient weight to letters from the CEO ofl lbut statements 
from the Petitioner's employer do not necessarily reflect a consensus in the field. 
The Petitioner also asserts that I I's receipt of two research grants from the I I 
I l is "evidence that the contributions made by [the Petitioner] have been substantial. If not, they 
would not continue to give grants tol I' The record does not include evidence from the 
Foundation to show what factors the Foundation considered when reviewing! l's second grant 
application. Without such evidence, we cannot give any weight to the claim that the Foundation's grants 
are presumptive evidence of the significance of the Petitioner's contributions. (We note that a submitted 
4 
printout from the Foundation's website identifies the lab's president, not the Petitioner, and therefore it 
does not show special attention to the Petitioner in particular.) 
The Petitioner has not established that his original contributions have been of major significance in the 
field. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role/or organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) 
The Petitioner initially claimed a "leading or critical role for both.__ _________ __, and for 
.__ _____ __," On appeal, the Petitioner does not dispute the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner 
did not show that he played a leading or critical role for I I We therefore consider the issue to be 
abandoned. 1 
The Petitioner asserts that his "critical role helps I I receive funding from venture 
capitalists and disease foundations." We do not need to discuss the nature of the Petitioner's role at the 
company unless the Petitioner has established that I I has a distinguished reputation. 
As evidence of that reputation, the Petitioner has submitted copies of several online articles indicating 
thatl I secured venture capital funding and entered into collaborations with com anies that 
~<led materials such as "patient-derived cells" and a "proprietary compound library" for 
L__J use. The company also participates in a startup incubator run by the University of .__ __ __, 
The Petitioner did not explain how these materials establish that I I has a distinguished 
reputation. Media coverage announced the beginnings of various ventures, such as collaborations, and 
the receipt of grants and venture capital. The Petitioner has not shown thatl I has attracted 
similar coverage for the results obtained as a result of the announced collaborations and funding. Local 
media announced the company's intention to begin drug development, but, as already noted above, the 
record does not show thatl lhas developed any approved drugs. The company's documented 
track record consists of fundraising and "closely-held trade secrets" that have not yet proven to be 
effective. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not "submit evidence to establish that!.__ _____ __, 
D has a distinguished reputation as compared to other related organizations." On appeal, the Petitioner 
contends that the regulation "does NOT require a comparison to other related organizations," only that 
the organization in question be "marked by eminence, distinction, or excellence." The Petitioner cites 
"Webster's online dictionary" for this definition, as does a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS) policy memorandum. 2 According to that same online source, however, the terms "eminence, 
distinction, [ and] excellence" all imply such a comparison. Eminence is "a position of prominence or 
1 See Sepulveda v. U.S. Atty Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2005), citing United States v. Cunningham. 161 
F.3d 1343, 1344 (11th Cir. 1998); see also Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *l, *9 (E.D.N.Y. 
Sept. 30, 2011) (plaintiffs claims were abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO). 
2 USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra. 
5 
superiority";3 distinction is "the quality or state of being excellent or superior";4 and excellence is the 
noun form of to excel, which means "to be superior to" or to "surpass in accomplishment or 
achievement." 5 All these definitions include the inherently comparative term "superior," defined as "of 
higher rank, quality, or importance" and "one that surpasses another in quality or merit."6 
Notwithstanding the Petitioner's claim that "distinguished" is not a com arative term, the Petitioner 
claims that "newspaper articles from the I !Business Times and Post Gazette describe 
I las a leader in the field, thereby essentially comparing~-----' to others in the field." The 
submitted articles from those papers, however, do not use the words "leading" or "leader" to describe 
I I and the Petitioner does not provide quotes from any of the articles that could be construed to 
have that meaning. One article indicates that I I is one of the first companies of its kind in the 
I larea, but the company's geographical location does not make the company "a leader in the 
field." 
The record does not show that .... ! _____ ___.I has a distinguished reputation. 
III. 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 provide 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 required 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. 953,954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner 
has not shown that the significance of his work is indicative of the required sustained national or 
international acclaim or that 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 section203(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 that he 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). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3 See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eminence (last visited Apr. 3, 2020). 
4 See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/distinction (last visited Apr. 3, 2020). 
5 See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/excel (last visited Apr. 3, 2020). 
6 See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/superior (last visited Apr. 3, 2020). 
G