dismissed EB-1A Case: Chemistry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 17944404 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : AUG . 19, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a research scientist in the field of chemistry, seeks classification as an individual 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 Petitioner 
established that he met only one of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for the requested classification, 
of which he must meet at least three . 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims that he meets three additional evidentiary criteria and is otherwise 
eligible for the benefit sought. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
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 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 sustained 
acclaim and the 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 
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) 
( 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 Pe~icates employment since 2018 as a senior scientist with thel I company.e=J 
D in L___J California. The record reflects that he holds a Ph.D. in chemistry fromc=J 
University. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
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 Director determined that the Petitioner met one of the evidentiary 
criteria, related to scholarly articles. We agree. The record reflects that the Petitioner has authored 
articles published in professional publications including Science, Nature Energy, and Joule, thus 
satisfying the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). On appeal , the Petitioner asserts that the Director 
erred in concluding that he did not satisfy the evidentiary criteria relating to published material, 
original contributions, and leading or critical role at 8 C.F.R . § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), (v), and (viii), 
respectively . After reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we find that the Petitioner does not 
satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x), as required. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any 
necessary translation . 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5(h)(3)(iii). 
The Director acknowledged that the Petitioner submitted several articles, however, he determined that 
the articles are primarily about two of the Petitioner's published works rather than about the Petitioner. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the submitted online articles satisfy this criterion, as they "are 
about [the Petitioner] and his team, covering work that is extensively credited to him throughout the 
2 
Initial Filing and the Request for Evidence." In order to satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner must 
demonstrate published material about him in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, as well as the title, date, and author of the material. 1 
The Petitioner provided several online articles dated 2015 by Scientific American 
(www.scientificaamerican.com, citing Chemistry World as its source), Forbes (www.forbes.com), 
National Geographic (www.news.nationalgeographic.com), Science Daily (www.sciencedaily.com), 
(e) Science News (esciencenews.com), and United Press International (www.upi.com). Although the 
articles are about the Petitioner's research in his 2015 Science article regarding the development of an 
.__ ___________ __. the articles are not about him. Instead, the Petitioner is briefly 
mentioned in the articles from Science Daily, (e) Science News, and United Press International, as 
discovering the newl I as a graduate student atl I working with post-doctoral 
fello~ I an~ I. The Petitioner is never mentioned in the body 
of the articles from Scientific American, Forbes, and National Geographic. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires the published material to be about the alien relating to his work rather than 
articles reporting on his work. Articles that are not about an alien do not fulfill this regulatory criterion. 
See, e.g., Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at *1, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding 
a finding that articles regarding a show are not about the actor). Further, the items from Science Daily 
and ( e) Science News do not include the "author of the material," as required by the regulation at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The record contains several additional online articles dated 2016 published by Science Daily 
(www.sciencedaily.com), Engadget (www.engadget.com), News Atlas (www.newsatlas.com), Yahoo 
News Singapore (www.sg.news.yahoo.com), Financial Express (www.financialexpress.com), and 
Research & Development World (www.rdmag.com, citing Engadget and Harvard Gazette as sources). 
Although the articles are about the Petitioner's research in his 2016 Nature EnerJzy article regarding 
the development of al ~ l the articles are 
not about him. Instead, the articles briefly mention the Petitioner as the article's first author and 
contain the same quote from the Petitioner, stating that the r'..=e~s.:::ea=rc::c~h;....:tc=e=am~'....1' =------------' 
.__ _____ ___, but ended up developing a new class ot1 I that should be simple 
to make and inexpensive to manufacture in large quantities. Although he is referenced, the articles 
are not about the Petitioner and do not otherwise meet this regulatory criterion. Here, again, the 
Petitioner provided articles only about his work instead of articles about him relating to his work. In 
addition, the Petitioner is never mentioned in the body of the articles from News Atlas and Research 
& Development World. Further, the items from Science Daily, Yahoo News Singapore, and Financial 
Express do not include the author of the material, as required. 
Moreover, none of the aforementioned articles was accompanied by supporting evidence 
demonstrating that they were published in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media. For these reasons, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he fulfills this criterion. 
1 See 6 USC1S Policy Manual F.2 appendix, https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-2 (providing 
guidance on the review of evidence submitted to satisfy the regulat01y criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x)). 
3 
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 meet this criterion, a petitioner must establish that not only has he made original 
contributions but that they have been of major significance in the field.2 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 in the field. 
The Petitioner claims that he has made original contributions of major significance in the field, as 
evidenced by his published research, citation record, letters from experts in the field, patent 
applications, and other evidence. 
Although the Petitioner provided evidence reflecting the originality of his research through 
recommendation letters praising him for his contributions, the authors do not provide specific 
examples of contributions that are indicative of major significance. 3 In general, the letters recount the 
Petitioner's research and findings, indicate their publication in journals, and point to the citation of his 
work by others. Although they reflect the novelty of his work, they do not show how his research and 
findings have been considered of such importance and how their impact on the field rises to the level 
required by this criterion. 
'--------~ a professor of chemistry and materials science atl I University, indicates 
that the Petitioner's work as a Ph.D. student with his research group built on his team's prior discovery 
of a '----------.============r that displayed better performance than metal ions 
currently in use in.__ _________ __. He explains that the Petitioner's published papers 
reported on the first high-performance and non-toxid lbased onl l 
Specifically, the Petitioner's article in Science reported on the use of I I I in the existin~ I while his subsequent articles in Nature Energy and 
Joule demonstr i ely, high-performancg ~ based on a new family ofll 
I I calledt----,____Jnd even lowerl I materials. He provide~ 
separate team at mt upon the Petitioner's work and showed that it is possible to implement 
a much cheaper in without compromising performance. ~ 
~serts that leading ~-~~technology companies, such asl ] , and 
~ have expressed interest in "potential commercialization of [the Petitioner's] novel.__ _ __. 
chemistry." Whilel !describes the originality of the Petitioner's research findings and 
indicates they have generated commercial interest he does not discuss in detail how the work has 
already remarkably impacted the field or provide examples of specific applications attributed to the 
Petitioner's work. 
The Petitioner provided letters from representatives of several companies with interest in his novel 
I !chemistry. For instanc~'---------'~ CTO ofi I indicates that 
on a recentlY, completed! lproject to develop lower cost membranes for the next-
based upon the Petitioner's Nature Ener; article he collaborated with the Petitioner's Ph.D. advisors 
generation ofl O I ~ a senior researcher a~ I 
2 See 6 USC1S Policy Manual, supra, at F.2 appendix (stating that although funded and published work may be "original," 
this fact alone is not sufficient to establish that the work is of major significance). 
3 Although we do not discuss every letter submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 
(Japan), indicates his company has been testing the Petitioner'sl I technology "for 
commercialization purposes" and that the Petitioner's! I chemistry "is positioned to reduce the 
cost of the entir~ lsvstem." I I indicates he cited to the Petitioner's Science article and 
used the Petitioner'~ I design idea as part of his own published study of a I I 
I lbasedon~-----~ 
Similarly,! I at the University o~ !indicates he cited to the Petitioner's Science 
article in his own work in 2017 which verified that em lo ment of molecules 
s1 nificantly enhanced the .__ ___________________________ __, 
,,__ __ ..,_in=-.:c"""omparison to conventional metal ion-based systems. He provides examples of the "novel 
concepts" of research teams in Denmark and Switzerland who have cited to the 
Petitioner's work." However, neithe~ JI I, nor I I further elaborated or discussed 
whether the Petitioner's findings have been implemented beyond informing the research of other 
scientists in the same field, and if so, the extent of their application. They did not specify how the 
Petitioner's research toward the development and commercialization of~---------~ 
I lbased onl lis deemed a majorly significant contribution to the field. 
An additional letter froml I a professor at .__ _____ --,--___ ___._,University 
I I asserts that the Petitioner's work "has changed the directii"'°"~~-,_ __ ___J research" 
and "gmded some ofmy own research as well as that ofmy colleagues.'.__ __ _.states that he cited 
to the Petitioner's articles ublished in Science and Nature Ener in his 2017 review article titled 
~-----------------------.---------.--~publishedinACS 
Energr Letters. He explains that his review article "evaluated 1 ~---___._, ........ ........,.........,,gies ranging from 
earlyl I systems ... to more recent systems based on.__ ______ ~, such as the ones 
developed by [the Petitioner] and his team," and he chose to highlight the work of the Petitioner and 
his team published in Science "as he made useful contributions to our understanding of1 I 
I I" specificall how a~----------- "reaches up to a high cell voltage of 
1.2V." Although escribes the Petitioner's research as "groundbreaking" and having 
"changed the direction o ~----~ research" he has not sufficiently detailed in what ways the 
Petitioner has advanced the state of research in his field or already remarkably impacted their shared 
field, or provided examples of specific applications attributed to the Petitioner's work. 
Finally, the Petitioner provided two letters from the Petitioner's employer,! ~ Within its 
initial submission, the Petitioner submitted a letter froml 11 rs CEO, who 
credits the Petitioner with leading the company's I IR&D effort in d~signing components of 
itsl I technology, thd ~' which he claims is "poised to completely 
redefine the technologies available on the market toda ." He state, that the Petitionrr imp~oved the 
company's original I I design, addin ~------~-chemicals, and 
I I to increase the commercial cycle life. He asserts that, with the 
Petitioner's expertise, the company's........,.---,---~ technology is "the most advance~ I 
technology that is commercially available" and "is proving immense~lar with companies that 
are developing next-generation mobilit a lications." He claims thatL___Jis partnering thel I 
and I I on supplying program, working with leading 
companies in th industr and that id lwas selected to be 
incorporated into the next-generation.__ _________ __. technologies. He indicates that 
5 
I I is in discussions wit~ !manufacturers to explore their interest in licensing and 
potentially acquiring its I I technology. 
Within the Petitioner's response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided 
an additional letter froml I in which he asserts that in June 2020, the performance of the 
technology developed by the Petitioner forL-,--___. ......... ,------------.----'was "validated 
to be more successful than every other recen advancement on the market" based on testing 
performed by the Department of Ener DOE an~-------------'""--;and that in August 
202Q I was acquired b "the bigges ~-----~ in the EU," based 
upon the Petitioner's novel~ _____ ___.contributions. 
We note that the DOEc=Jtesting and the acquisition ofl I byl I occurred after 
the initial filing of the petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). Regardless, the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate that a company's negotiation to potentially commercialize his research demonstrates that 
the field already recognizes his work as being majorly significant. Nor did the Petitioner show that 
the commercialization of research work bl compares automatically evidences contributions of major 
significance in the field. Even if1 I. , orl I commercialized the Petitioner's 
inventions, he did not establish the impact or influence of his work in the overall field rather than 
limited to the company. In addition, the Petitioner did not demonstrate the result of those companies' 
commercialization, such as high sales or widespread usability of a product or application. Although 
others opine that the Petitioner's work shows promise, the Petitioner did not demonstrate how his work 
already qualifies as a contribution of major significance in the field, rather than prospective, potential 
impacts. Here, the significant nature of his novel.__ _____ ____, contributions has yet to be 
determined. 
The letters considered above primarily contain attestations of the novelty and utility of the Petitioner's 
research studies without providing specific examples of contributions that rise to a level consistent 
with major significance. Letters that specifically articulate how a petitioner's contributions are of 
major significance to the field and its impact on subsequent work add value. 4 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. 5 USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory 
statements. 1756, Inc. v. The US. Atty Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). The authors' 
assertions in the above-referenced letters do not explain how the Petitioner's research findings have 
been widely implemented or relied upon by others in the field or establish that the Petitioner's work 
has had a demonstrable impact on the field as a whole commensurate with a contribution of major 
significance. 
Regarding his patent applications, the Petitioner submitted evidence showinJ he is a co-inventor on 
two patent applications, for al and a I I I I respectively. In general, 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. Here, the 
Petitioner's patent applications show the originality of his work, but they did not demonstrate that it 
resulted in a contribution of major significance in the field. 
4 See 6 USC1S Policy Manual, supra. at F.2 appendix. 
5 Id. 
6 
The Petitioner also submits his publication and citation record from Google Scholar. Regarding his 
citations, the Petitioner initially provided evidence from Google Scholar reflecting 884 cumulative 
citations. Specifically, the record shows that his four highest cited articles received 422 (Science), 179 
(Nature Energy), 124 (Nature Materials), and 60 (Joule), citations, respectively. 6 This evidence, 
however, does not show that the impact of his work on the overall field of chemistry rises to the level 
of an original contribution of major significance. Citation to one's work alone is insufficient under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that they were of "major significance," as a citation ranking 
does not provide sufficient context to determine the impact or importance of a given researcher's work 
in the field. 7 Rather, we must consider whether the Petitioner's articles "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 [his] work as authoritative in the field." 8 
The Petitioner has presented samples of articles that have cited to his work. A review of those articles, 
though, does not show the significance of the Petitioner's research to the overall field beyond the 
authors who cited to his work. For instance the Petitioner rovided a artial article titled I I 
~------------------------------~ (Joule), in 
which the authors cited to his 2016 Nature Energy article. 9 However, the article does not distinguish 
or highlight the Petitioner's written work from the over 63 other cited papers. Here, the Petitioner has 
not shown how any of his published articles have an impact that rises to the level of "major 
significance" consistent with this regulatory criterion. 
The Petitioner also emphasizes that his publications have been cited in several review articles. One 
of the submitted partial review articles, titled.__ ____________________ __. 
.__ _____ ~(Angewandte Chemie), cites to the Petitioner's 2015 Science article among at least 
176 other articles. While the inclusion of the Petitioner's research in this and other review articles is 
noted, and the evidence indicates that the Petitioner has made original contributions to what appears 
to be a very active field of research, we cannot determine that every publication cited in a review 
article is indicative of an individual contribution of major significance, and the evidence does not 
distinguish the Petitioner's publications from the many others cited. 
Moreover, the Petitioner has not established, as asserted, that publication of his articles in highly 
ranked journals, as well as presentations at reputable conferences, establish that the field considers his 
research to be an original contribution of major significance. A publication that bears a high ranking 
or impact factor is reflective of the publication's overall citation rate. It does not show an author's 
influence or the impact of research on the field or that every article published in a highly ranked journal 
automatically indicates a contribution of major significance. Publications and presentations are not 
6 The Petitioner's remaining three articles and two patent applications, published between 2013 and 2019, garnered 
between 1 and 40 citations. 
7 Further, we note that evidence that summarizes citations to the Petitioner's entire body of published work does not 
demonstrate that any specific work of his is so widely cited and relied upon that it is considered to have made a major 
impact in his field. Comparison of the Petitioner's cumulative citations to others in the field 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 of endeavor in a final merits determination. 
8 See 6 USC1S Policy Manual, supra, at F.2 appendix. 
9 Although we discuss a sample article, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
7 
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 at 1036, aff'd in part, 596 F.3d at 1115. Here, the Petitioner has not 
established that publication in a popular or highly ranked journal alone demonstrates a contribution of 
major significance in the field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner refers to our non-precedent decision concerning a virologist who petitioned 
under this classification. This decision was not published as a precedent and therefore does not bind 
USCIS officers in future adjudications. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c). Non-precedent decisions apply 
existing law and policy to the specific facts of the individual case and may be distinguishable based 
on the evidence in the record of proceedings, the issues considered, and applicable law and policy. 
Nevertheless, we note that the Petitioner emphasizes that, in the referenced decision, "the petitioner 
demonstrated his significant contributions through reference letters describing their use and 
implementation in the field, and corroborating documentation." We agree that the non-precedent 
decision highlights the fact that we placed significant weight on the statements of experts who clearly 
described how the petitioner's scientific contributions were both original and of major significance in 
their field. However, for the reasons discussed previously, the expert opinion letters submitted in this 
matter did not contain sufficient probative analysis to establish that the Petitioner's research findings, 
individually or collectively, have remarkably impacted or influenced his field. 
The Petitioner also maintains on appeal that reports by media outlets demonstrate that he "has made 
significant contributions to his field." As discussed previously, the record contains several articles, 
some of which briefly mention the Petitioner, that discuss some of his teams' research findings. For 
example, online articles from Scientific American, National Geographic, and (e) Science News, report 
the findings of his Science article regarding the development ofl I at the 
time of the publication of that work in September 2015. Additional online articles by Science Daily, 
Engadget, and Research & Development World report the findings of the Petitioner's Nature Enerf[F 
article regarding the development of~~----------------------~[ 
at the time of the publication of that work in July 2016. The Petitioner did not show, however, that 
such limited media coverage indicates an original contribution of major significance in the field. For 
example, it did not demonstrate that the Petitioner's research and findings resulted in widespread 
coverage and interest. 
Considered together, the evidence consisting of the citations to the Petitioner's published findings, 
patent applications, citation statistics, and the reference letters from his fellow chemists and other 
experts, establishes that the Petitioner has been productive, and that his published data and findings 
have been relied upon by others in their own research. It does not demonstrate that the Petitioner has 
made a contribution of major significance in the field of chemistry. Therefore, he has not met this 
criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
We find that although the Petitioner satisfies the scholarly articles criterion, he does not meet the 
claimed criteria regarding published material and original contributions of major significance. While 
he argues and submits evidence for one additional criterion on appeal, relating to leading or critical 
role for organizations or establishments at C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), we need not reach this additional 
ground. As the Petitioner cannot fulfill the initial evidentiary requirement of three criteria under 
8 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), we reserve this issue. 10 Accordingly, 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 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). 
Although the Petitioner has conducted research and authored scholarly articles, the record does not 
contain sufficient evidence establishing that he is among the upper echelon in his field. 
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, with each considered 
as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
10 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required 
to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach). 
9