dismissed EB-1A Case: Chemistry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 9777396 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG . 25, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a patent agent, 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 Petitioner had 
satisfied only two of the initial evidentiary criteria, of which he must meet at least three. 
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) 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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner indicates employment as a patent officer with~-----------~ in 
I I Massachusetts. Because the Petitioner has not claimed 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). 
In denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner fulfilled two of the initial 
evidentiary criteria, judging at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and scholarly articles at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). The record reflects that the Petitioner reviewed papers for journals. 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 asserts that he meets three additional criteria, discussed below. After 
reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we conclude that the record does not support a finding that 
the Petitioner satisfies the requirements of at least three criteria. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
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). 
In order to satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner must establish that not only 
has he made original contributions but that they have been of major significance in the field.1 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 argues that his "publishing of numerous, original research contributions in high-impact 
journal supports the 'major significance' of his research findings." Moreover, the Petitioner claims 
that "[p]ublishing even one time in a high-impact journal would show and document such 
significance," and he "has done so every time with all thirteen publications." However, the Petitioner 
1 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 ADll-14 8-9 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html (finding that although funded and published work may 
be "original," this fact alone is not sufficient to establish that the work is of major significance). 
2 
did not demonstrate that publication of articles in highly ranked journals automatically establishes 
original contributions of major significance. Moreover, a publication that bears a high ranking or 
impact factor reflects the publication's overall citation rate; it does not show an author's influence or 
the impact of research in the field or that every article published in a highly ranked journal 
automatically indicates a contribution of major significance. 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), aff'd in part, 596 F.3d 1115. Here, the 
Petitioner did not establish that publication in a popular or highly ranked journal alone demonstrates 
a contribution of major significance in the field. For example, the Petitioner did not explain how an 
article published in a "high-impact" journal that resulted in receiving little no attention or otherwise 
did not influence the field would routinely qualify as being majorly significant in the field. 
Moreover, the Petitioner contends that "his publications have garnered special attention or recognition 
from international publishers and periodicals, in ways uncommon and particularly celebratory; this 
due to and highlighting their major significance." Specifically, the Petitioner references his 2016 
paper published in Chemistry-A European Journal that was identified as a I I' by the editors 
of the journal. 2 In addition, the Petitioner indicates that his 2019 ChemMedChem article I I 
the I I journal. Further, the Petitioner points out that Synfacts I 12017 
Chemical Communications and 2018 Nature Chemistry articles.3 Similar to the discussion above, the 
Petitioner did not establish that an article's selection as '--------------------' journal, orl ISynfacts necessarily automatically shows a contribution of major significance in 
the field. While the selection, I I may signify that the editors or publishers' 
opinions regarding the possibility or even actual importance of the research, the act alone does 
demonstrate the major significance of the research without evidence showing the influence in the field. 
Again, for instance, the Petitioner did not explain how an article's~-------~ that 
ultimately did not yield any attention or otherwise did not impact the field would normally qualify as 
being majorly significant in the field. 
In addition, the record reflects that the Petitioner submitted citatory evidence from Google Scholar 
reflecting that his 2016 1 I article received 23 citations, 2017 and 2018 Synfacts articles 
received 18 and 40 citations, respectively, and his 2019 cover article did not receive any citations. 
Generally, citations can serve as an indication that the field has taken interest in a petitioner's research 
2 The Petitioner provides a screenshot from onlinelibrary.wiley.com indicating that I lare chosen by the Editors 
[of Chemistry- A European Journal] for their importance in a rapidly evolving field of high current interest." 
3 The Petitioner submits screenshots from thieme.de reflecting: 
In SYN FACTS, current research results in '-----,,----'from the primary literature are screened, 
selected, evaluated, summarized, and enriched with personal comments by experts in their fields on a 
monthly basis. 
SYN FACTS addresses the needs ofl I in academia (including students) and industry by 
helping them to know, learn, and think more about their own field as well as neighboring disciplines. 
SYN FACTS stimulates the reader's research and the development of exciting new ideas. The journal is 
also aiming to support teaching and lecturing activities as well as examination preparation. 
SYNFACTS offers the reader summaries of the most significant current results from the primary 
literature in the following thematic categories .... 
3 
or written work. However, the Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that the citations to his work are 
commensurate with contributions of major significance. 4 Here, the Petitioner did not articulate the 
significance or relevance of the citations to his articles. For example, he did not demonstrate that these 
citations are unusually high in his field or how they compare to other articles that the field views as 
having been majorly significant. Although his citations indicate the some in the field have referenced 
his work, the Petitioner did not establish that his citation numbers to his work rise to the level of major 
significance consistent with this regulatory criterion.5 
Furthermore, even considering both the publication selections and citation figures, the Petitioner did 
not establish that the articles or research findings reflect majorly significant contributions. In fact, as 
indicated, while ChemMedChem featured his article on the cover, the Petitioner did not demonstrate 
that others have cited to or been influenced by his work, showing that the appearance on a journal 
cover does not automatically establish a contribution of major significance in the field. 
The Petitioner also argues that his submission of 11 recommendation letters "were extensive in 
number," and "[t]hey also verified, in [sic] informed, [in] expert-caliber and detailed ways, the 'major 
significance' element." Although the letters recount the Petitioner's research and findings and make 
broad statements regarding their significance in the field, they do contain sufficient information 
detailing how his work has been of major significance. For instance.I I indicated 
that the Petitioner's "contribution to the chemical synthesis ofl I provides researchers in 
the drug discovery field with a versatile chemistry tool to access this privileged class o~ lthat 
are otherwise inaccessible."6 I I for example, did not further elaborate and identify which 
molecules have been accessed and the drugs that were discovered using the Petitioner's research, 
signifying a contribution of major significance. 
Likewise.I I stated that "[t]his study is the first demonstration of remote! I 
I I reactions without the involvement of external oxidants or reductants, and for 
the first time provides both ex erimental and theoretical evidence for the existence of I I 
intermediates in L_ _______ __,---,- ___ __J reactions." While the letter shows 
the originality of the Petitioner's research, did not elaborate and explain how this study has 
impacted the field in a majorly, significant manner. ,___ __ _., for instance, did not demonstrate that 
the Petitioner's study has been widely applied throughout the field, nor did he articulate the outcomes 
or results in the field from his study. 
In fact, the letters speculate on the possibility and potential of his research in the field rather than how 
his work has already been of major significance in the field. For ex m I "k I I intermediates 
. . . can serve as valuable tools for medicinal chemistry" · "these new I I 
.......,.,.,~----~-~~ inhibitors show promising ability to~e,___ _____ _.· and 
"t e Pet1t1oner's m mgs are very exciting because these novelL__Jtracers can be used in PET 
4 The Petitioner also did not demonstrate that any of his other articles resulted in original contributions of major significance 
in the field. 
5 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 of the person's contributions to the field of endeavor). 
6 Although we discuss a sampling of letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 
imaging of atients with neurological disorders" I I, "[the Petitioner's] work in 
developin method hold potential for tremendrn1s impact on our societ " 
" 1s angina mdings will enable the use at I and,___ _____ __, for 
..... 1--.ab_e.....,li~n-g-o-rg_a_n~ic~molecules"I I, "[the Petitioner] has conducted invaluable research 
that will change the future of the field to the benefit of the people of America anp...1b..e..Jllild" D I I, and "this work will also have lasting impacts on the field of L___J organic 
chemistry and the pharmaceutical industry" I I). (emphasis added). Although 
the letters opine on the possibility of the influence of the Petitioner's research and work at some time 
in the future, they do not demonstrate how his work has already impacted, influenced, or affected the 
field in a majorly significant manner. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner references letters froml II I andl I as examples 
of how "fundamental [his] research and record of discovery have been to their own work." Indeed, 
I !discussed that he "recently highlighted one of [the Petitioner's] papers in a publication by 
my own research group,"I I stated that the Petitioner's "work has greatly impacted my own, 
andl I indicated that he conducted his "own evaluation of the [the Petitioner's] work." While 
the letters reflect that these individuals built upon the Petitioner's work in their own research, they do 
not show the significance of his research in the overall field beyond their own research and written 
findings.7 For example.I !concluded that "[b]uilding on [the Petitioner's] prior work, my 
research arouq and collaborators at developed a highly effective, user-friendlX 
I Jmethod for th ~--~another important class of pharmaceutical~! ----~J 
which directly correspond to active pharmaceuticals." Although he cites to the Petitioner's paper as 
"an imQortant exception" in the reference section of his Journal of the American Chemical Society 
article, I ldid not elaborate and explain how the Petitioner's paper has affected the field in a 
majorly significant way, or even the level of significance of his own research in the field, beyond 
developing a new method and publishing in a journal. Similarly, while the Petitioner argues that an 
Organic Letters article referred to his research as a "breakthrough," the article does not provide any 
further explanation or show the major significance in the field beyond the article. 
Here, the Petitioner's letters do not contain specific, detailed information explaining the unusual 
influence or high impact his research or work has had on the overall field.8 Letters that specifically 
articulate how a petitioner's contributions are of major significance to the field and its impact on 
subsequent work add value. 9 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.10 Moreover, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory statements. 1756, Inc. v. The 
U.S. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
7 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9; see also Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 134-35 
(D.D.C. 2013) (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). 
8 Although we discussed a sampling of letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
9 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9. 
10 Id. at 9. See also Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036, 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 
For the reasons discussed above, considered both individually and collectively, the Petitioner has not 
shown that his original contributions rise to the level of major significance in the field. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
As it relates to a leading role, the evidence must establish that the alien is or was a leader. A title, with 
appropriate matching duties, can help to establish if a role is or was, in fact, leading.11 Regarding a 
critical role, the evidence must demonstrate that an alien contributed in a way that is of significant 
importance to the outcome of the organization or establishment's activities. It is not the title of a 
petitioner's role, but rather the performance in the role that determines whether the role is or was 
critical. 12 
The Petitioner argues that he meets this criterion based on his role at ,___ _______ ~---r--
and I , , ,I, and references previously discussed letters from 
I land I I The letters, however, do not reflect that the Petitioner performed in a leading 
role, nor do they show that he performed in a critical role. Moreover, the letters briefly acknowledge 
his role atLJand Dbut do not provide specific, detailed information demonstrating the leading 
or critical nature of his role.13 Instead, the letters discuss the Petitioner's original research and work 
without making any claims of the Petitioner serving in a leadership position or crediting him for being 
responsible for the successes or outcomes of the school or hospital's activities. 
Relating tol l's letter, he indicated that the Petitioner "joined the program as 
a Postdoctoral Fellow in the Division of,___ _______________ ___., and the 
Department o~ I." Here the Petitioner did not demonstrate how serving in the role 
of a postdoctoral fellow in a division oft::::] or department atOshows his leading position to 
the hospital or school, nor did he establish his position in the overall hierarchy of the institutions. 
Furthermore, while I I stated that he "met with [the Petitioner] in collaborative research 
meetings, heard [his] research presentations, and watched with approval and admiration as he has 
worked closely with my colleague! I in the positron emission tomography (PET) 
core facility atl I to make groundbreaking advancements in PETI t· he did not 
articulate hol perfrring rei5earch within a division of department resulted in critical or essential 
outcomes for or 
Similarly.I !stated that he "was the direct su
1
pervis°r for [the Petitioner] during his 2-year 
postdoctoral fellowship in [his] program at I I and ." Further, he indicated that "[i]n [his] 
laboratory, [the Petitioner] produced 2 more first-author publications in Chemical Communications on 
new applications withl I" and [o]ur laboratory had no prior expertise with 
this sub-molecular unit, so [the Petitioner] paved the way for our team to continue productive work in 
this area." Again.I I did not claim that the Petitioner's position as a postdoctoral fellow 
11 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 10. 
12 Id. 
13 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 10 (stating that letters from individuals with personal 
knowledge of the significance of a petitioner's leading or critical role can be particularly helpful in making this 
determination as long as the letters contain detailed and probative information that specifically addresses how the role for 
the organization or establishment was leading or critical). 
6 
constituted a leading role forl I or I I Moreover, although I !credited the Petitioner 
for paving the way in his laboratory, he did not establish how such work in a laboratory translated into 
a critical role for the school or hos ital. Likewise, while the Petitioner authored articles regarding his 
research in the laborator did not explain how such authorship, publication, or research 
was critical toD or._______. s activities. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not show that he meets 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 claims eligibility for this criterion based on his salary withOas a patent agent. 
Moreover, the Petitioner argues that his salary should be compared to the salaries of chemists since 
his specialization as a patent agent is in chemistry. Furthermore, the Petitioner provides screenshots 
from flcdatacenter.com and contends that when entering "patent" in the Foreign Labor Certificate Data 
Center Online Wage Library, several occupations match the search, including microsystem engineers, 
mechanical drafters, chemists, lawyers, and legal support workers. In addition, the Petitioner provides 
a screenshot from I advertising for an "Intellectual Property- Patent Agent or Junior Patent 
Associate (Chemistry)" that requires "one to three years of experience and a strong technical 
background in organic chemistry." He also offers the requirements to practice matters before the 
United States Patent and Trademark Office, including a bachelor's degree in various subjects, such as 
biochemistry, general chemistry, and organic chemistry. 
In order to meet this criterion, an alien must demonstrate that his salary or remuneration is high relative 
to the compensation paid to others working in the field.14 In the case here, the Petitioner is employed 
as a chemistry patent agent; and therefore, he must establish that he commands a high salary in relation 
to other chemistry patent agents. Both precedent and case law support this application of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ix). See Matter of Price, 20 l&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) (considering a 
professional golfer's earnings versus other PGA Tour golfers); see also Skokos v. U.S. Dept. of 
Homeland Sec., 420 F. App'x 712, 713-14 (9th Cir. 2011) (finding salary information for those 
performing lesser duties is not a comparison to others in the field); 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. Ill. 1995) (comparing salary of NHL defensive player to salary of 
other NHL defensemen). Although he previously submitted salary information relating to chemists, 
the Petitioner has not shown he commands a high salary in relation to other chemistry patent agents. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner did not establish that he fulfills this criterion. 
B. 0-1 Nonimmigrant Status 
We note that the record reflects that the Petitioner received 0-1 status, a classification reserved for 
nonimmigrants of extraordinary ability. Although USCIS has approved at least one 0-1 nonimmigrant 
visa petition filed on behalf of the Petitioner, the prior approval does not preclude USCIS from denying 
an immigrant visa petition which is adjudicated based on a different standard - statute, regulations, 
14 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 11. 
7 
and case law. Many Form 1-140 immigrant petitions are denied after USCIS approves prior 
nonimmigrant petitions. See, e.g., Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2003); 
IKEA US v. US Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 
F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). Furthermore, our authority 
over the USCIS service centers, the office adjudicating the nonimmigrant visa petition, is comparable 
to the relationship between a court of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director has 
approved a nonimmigrant petition on behalf of an individual, we are not bound to follow that finding 
in the adjudication of another immigration petition. See La. Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, No. 98-
2855, 2000 WL 282785, at *2 (E.D. La. 2000). 
111. 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 l&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 reviewed manuscripts, conducted research, and published his work, 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. 
8