dismissed EB-1A Case: Chemistry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 21881018 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEPT. 6, 2022 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a chemist and manufacturer of dietary supplements, seeks classification as an 
individual of extraordinary ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
203(b )(1 )(A), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b )(1 )(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)(l)(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to individuals with 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; who seek to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability; and whose 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 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 the initial evidence requirements through either a one-time achievement or 
meeting three lesser criteria, 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 a Ph.D. in "chemistry and natural products" at Universi in 
1980, and pursued postdoctoral training at !University and the University o 
I I He established three companies which he directs: [ I and 
I both in India, andl I in New York, which he established in 2021 while in 
the United States as a B-2 nonimmigrant visitor. The Petitioner states: 
In 1988, I started my own company and independently started to [ conduct] research on 
natural products. I view myself as an emerging scientist, and I am mainly interested in 
[processing] Edible products ... to check their efficacies in [ treating] different diseases. 
My current research involves the development of novel compounds for various critical 
diseases where no present day therapies [exist] like Pancreatic Cancer Stem Cells, 
Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma, Castrate Resistant Prostate cancer, Lung Carcinomas, 
Alzheimer's diseases, Sars-cov2, Metabolism and Joint Pains. Compounds have been 
tested in Xenograft studies of these diseases and have [shown] very intriguing efficacy. 
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 claimed to have satisfied three of these criteria, summarized below: 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance; 
• (vi), Authorship of scholarly articles; and 
• (ix), High remuneration for services. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner published six scholarly articles, to meet the criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he also meets the other claimed 
criteria. Upon review of the record, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has satisfied only 
one criterion, pertaining to publication of scholarly articles. We will discuss the other claimed criteria 
below. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The Petitioner co-authored six scholarly articles, published between 1979 and 1985. Heavy citation of 
published work can be an indication of the significance of an individual's contributions. 6 USCIS Policy 
ManualF.2 appendix, https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. Here, each of the Petitioner's articles has 
2 
been cited between2 and 1 7 times. The Petitioner has not established that this rate of citation overroughly 
four decades demonstrates major significance. 
More recent documentation indicates that the Petitioner has continued to conduct research outside an 
academic setting. Documents from India's patent authorities indicate that he registered a patent in 2004 
for a "process for preparing the phannaceutical extract." He also filed two applications in 2020, for "a 
process for preparing a phannaceutical preparation for diabetes" and "a process for preparing a 
pharmaceutical preparation. The Petitioner did not document the outcome of these applications. 
The Petitioner submits three letters. One, written in 1984 by a chemistry professor at I does not 
identify any specific research contributions by the Petitioner. Rather, the five-sentence letter is addressed 
to an administrative official at asking to extend the Petitioner's postdoctoral fellowship "for one 
additional year." 
The other two letters were newl written to support the petition. An assistant professor at the University 
of stated that the Petitioner "discovered new botanical drug 
__ against COVID-19," and that"[ w ]e are in the process of the [sic] beginning phase I clinical 
trials." The letter indicates that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) "has provided pre-IND 
number," but the Petitioner submitted no evidence to corroborate this claim or explain its significance. 
The chief executive officer ofl I, "an operating/venture fund," has "known [ the Petitioner] 
since 19 7 5 ." The letter discusses I I in similar language to the letter quoted above, and also 
indicates that an unspecified "compound invented by [the Petitioner] ... has shown intriguing efficiency" 
against "pancreatic cancer stem cells which ... are the main culprit for developing chemoresistance in 
pancreatic cancer." 
In response to a request for evidence, the Petitioner submitted documents referring to commercialization 
and testing of compounds developed by the Petitioner's companies. These materials provide details about 
those compounds, but they include no intrinsic evidence to establish major significance in the field. 
The Petitioner also submitted two additional letters. The president of 
who has "worked closely" with the Petitioner since 2016 "to analyze his natural product compounds," 
stated: 
Our efforts working with [the Petitioner's] natural products have revealed ___ 
inhibitor activity for several high-profile I The greatest inhibition was seen with 
HER2, a receptor I that has been an actively studied target for the treatment 
of human cancer. I believe that [ the Petitioner's] research program represents a novel and 
promising research strategy that will lead to promising advancements in the treatment of 
human cancers and related maladies. 
The Petitioner submitted documentation relating tol I test results, but did not establish that 
these results had been published or otherwise disseminated more widely in the field. 
A professor at stated: "Our group is actively collaborating with to 
investigatel eff ects on various GI cancers. In our initial screening, we also observed that 
3 
__ inhibits the growth of various cancer cells ... .. gave us tremendous hope for the 
management of cancer." 
The Petitioner did not submit evidence to show that I I has attracted attention beyond his 
collaborators and those with a commercial interest in the product. Despite the hopeful comments of the 
Petitioner's collaborators, the Petitioner has not submitted evidence to show that the wider field considers 
the Petitioner's contributions to have major significance. 
The Petitioner also asserted that his "patent is nowused by [the University 
I I University Institute for making ointments for diabetic wounds." The Petitioner 
submitted technical documents from University relating to testing of compounds, and a copy of a 
letter indicating that "the topical application of .. may be considered as a pmmising therapeutic 
option for treating chronic wounds in diabetic patients." The letteris from2018,neai1ythree years before 
the Petitioner filed the petition, and the record does not establish that the university adopted the use of the 
compound since that time. Furthermore, in the absence of any additional evidence, use at a single 
institution would not establish major significance in the field. 
The Director denied the petition, stating that, while the Petitioner has submitted documentation describing 
his work, he has not shown that his "research has made a major impact on the field, or been utilized on 
any scale." 
On appeal, the Petitioner states: "Impact of my research will be seen in coming months. . . . All our 
compounds may need FDA approval for which funds are required. So not published but only patented." 
He adds: "Anticancer, antidiabetic, Anti COVID-19 compounds already developed. Anti COVID-19 
Got pre IND no. from FDA to go for Clinical Trails [sic]. Working on Neurodegerative [sic] diseases." 
The Petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103 .2(b)(l). As a 
result, we cannot approve a petition prematurely, on the expectation that the "impact of [his] research will 
be seen in the coming months." To satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), the Petitioner must 
show that his original contributions already have major significance in the field; it cannot suffice for him 
to anticipate the field's future response to his work. 
With respect to the references to the FDA, the Petitioner has not established that the FDA only concerns 
itself with contributions of major significance. Additionally, as he notes, "All our compounds may need 
FDA approval for which funds are required," nothing shows that funding will be received or the FDA 
would ultimately approve these. The Petitioner's intention to pursue further steps with the FDA regarding 
his companies' products is not a major contribution, and does not establish the major significance of those 
products. 
The Petitioner repeats that claim that his company's "antidiabetic compound [is] already used by 
University India to develop ointment for quick wound healing & [preventing] amputations." As noted 
above, the Petitioner has shown that the university evaluated one of his compounds, but he has not 
established that the compound has been widely adopted and had an impact not only at one institution, but 
throughout the field. 
4 
The development of medicinal compounds is inherent to the Petitioner's current work; the invention of 
any given compound is not, in and of itself, a contribution of major significance. The Petitioner has not 
satisfied this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
The Petitioner stated: "I am self employed and Revenue is being generated from commercialisation of 
my patented compounds." Citing inf ormation on his income tax return for 2020-2021, the Petitioner 
stated that, during that tax year, he earned "910,000 Indian Rupees as wages and an additional 460,241 
Indian Rupees as business remuneration" from his companies, for a total of < 1,370,241. Citing salary 
survey data, the Petitioner asserted that his total income "is approximately four times the average in India" 
for "Analytical Chemists and otherresearchers." The Petitioner did not submit the first-hand survey data 
itself, and therefore this assertion is both uncorroborated and lacking in potentially important context. 
In a request for evidence, the Director asked for documentary evidence sufficient to allow a meaningful 
comparison between the Petitioner's salary and remuneration and that of others in the same field. In 
response, the Petitioner submitted printouts of salary ranges for a variety of occupations: 
Occupation 
Medical Scientist 
Medical Director 
Research Scientist 
Biomedical Engineer 
Average Annual Salary 
<832,000 
<855,000 
<687,490 
Ministry of Defence Emeritus Medical Scientist 
Indian Council of Medical Research Scientist 
<357,000 
<790,830 
<451,692 
Scientist <596,088 
Source 
Salary explorer 
Salary explorer 
Payscale 
Collegedunia 
Glassdoor 
Indeed 
Indeed 
The wide range of figures indicates a lack of consensus. Some figures concern employment with a 
specific employer, and thus do not represent the field. The Glassdoor figure is tagged with a "Low" rate 
of confidence in the data; the printouts do not establish the reliability of the other figures. The printouts 
do not list the duties of the occupations, and the Petitioner has not established that his position is 
comparable to the many occupational titles listed in the printouts. Of particular significance, the 
Petitioner owns three businesses and, in this way, derives income beyond his salary. The record 
identifies those businesses but provides only a small amount of information as to the nature of their 
activities. The printouts do not take this significant factor into account. 
Apart from the other issues, the Pay scale printout indicates that 10% of medical scientists in India earn 
more than <2 million, which is more than double the Petitioner's stated salary of <910,000 and 
considerably higher than hist stated total compensation of about < 1.37 million. 
In the denial notice, the Director stated that the web printouts state "the compensation for medical 
scientists without taking into account whether they are corporate executives or business owners" like the 
Petitioner is, and therefore the Petitioner had not provided a valid basis for comparison. 
5 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that the "average salary of [a] scientific officer'' is <52,000, and that his 
<140,000 "income ... supports my life and R&D comfortably." This statement implicitly acknowledges 
the distinction between "salary" and "income," but does not resolve the problem that the Director 
described. Also, the regulatory standard is "a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for 
services, in relation to others in the field," not whether the Petitioner's income is sufficient to fund 
research and development. 
The Petitioner has not met his burden of proof to satisfy this criterion. 
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 lesser 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 conclusion 
that the Petitioner has established the sustained national or international 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. U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services 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 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 section203(b)(l )(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
We note, further, that while the Petitioner is the co-author of eight published articles, those articles 
were all published more than 35 years before he filed the petition in 2021. In terms of sustained 
acclaim, it bears noting that the Petitioner's articles have been cited only a handful of times in the past 
decade, the most recent citation having appeared in 201 7. The evidence submitted does not show the 
field-wide recognition or sustained acclaim that the statute and regulations demand. Rather, he has 
submitted letters from individuals working with him on product testing and development. Some of 
his products have reached the market, but the record does not show the impact these products have 
had on a national or international scale. 
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. 
6