dismissed EB-1A Case: Chemistry

MATTER OF G-N-C-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN. 4, 2016 
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a chemist, seeks classification as an individual of"extraordinary ability" in science. See 
§ 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Act); 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). The 
Director, Texas Service Center, denied the petition. The matter is now before us on appeal. The 
appeal will be dismissed. 
The classification the Petitioner seeks makes visas available to foreign nationals who can demonstrate 
extraordinary ability through sustained national or intematio~al acclaim and achievements that have 
been recognized in the area of expertise through extensive documentation. The Director determined 
that the Petitioner had not satisfied the initial evidentiary requirements set forth at 8 C.F .R 
§ 204.5(h)(3), which necessitate a one-time achievement or evidence that meets at least three of ten 
regulatory criteria. On appeal, the Petitioner submits a legal brief and additional exhibits. 
I. LAW 
Section 203 (b) of the Act states in pertinent part: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants who 
are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. --An alien is described in this subparagraph 
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. 
(b)(6)
Matter ofG-N-C-
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 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 the 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). 
Satisfaction of at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this 
classification. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing a two-part review 
where the evidence is first counted and then, if satisfying the required number of criteria, considered 
in the context of a final merits determination). See also RijaJ v. USCIS, 772 F.Supp.2d 1339 (W.D. 
Wash. 2011) (affirming our proper application of Kazarian), aff'd, 683 F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F.Supp.3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013) (finding that we appropriately applied 
the two-step review); Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (holding that the 
"truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality" and that we 
examine "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually 
and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is 
probably true"). 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 1 
The Director found the Petitioner did not meet at least three of the criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)- (x). We address the six criteria sought by the Petitioner below. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The Petitioner maintains he has met this criterion through documentation of his receipt of Second 
Place at the 
Wisconsin. A printout 
from website confirms it has 3,200 members and sponsors approximately ·1 ,900 
presentations at its annual meetings. The record shows that the poster presentation prizes given 
at 
annual meetings are divided into categories of professional, research fellowship, and 
student. The subject matter must be toxicogenomics, an emerging research field. The student 
section has 18 awards, 2 with winners chosen by the Student Presentations Subcommittee in 
1 We have reviewed all of the evidence and will address those criteria the Petitioner asserts that he meets or for which the 
Petitioner has submitted relevant and probative evidence. 
2 Students compete in platform and poster categories. In both categories, first, second, and third place awards are given 
for each academic: undergraduate, masters, and Ph.D., resulting in a total of 18. 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter ofG-N-C-
conjunction with additional reviewers. It is the recognition of the particular award the Petitioner 
received, and not in general, that is relevant. 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated his student poster presentation award has the visibility or 
prestige consistent with national or international recognition. The Petitioner inCluded eight letters 
of recommendations from those familiar with his accomplishments. However, other than the 
Petitioner's Ph.D. advisor, no recommendation writers mentioned this award in describing the 
Petitioner's achievements. The Petitioner also did not submit evidence of recognition in the field, 
such as coverage of the award selections in the trade or general media. In visapetition proceedings, 
it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. § 291 of the 
Act. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not shown that he has received a nationally or internationally 
recognized award for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classification is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
The Petitioner provided evidence that he has been admitted to the 
, and the 
constitutions and bylaws 
organizations. The 
The record contains 
for these groups, which list the requirements for membership in the 
bylaws list the following as membership qualifications: 
• Must share the stated purpose of the Society; 
• Must have applied experience, education, or have conducted research in areas related 
to the Society's stated purpose; 
• Must have a primary degree (e.g. B.Sc.) plus three years experience OR must be by 
special appointment by the upon recommendation from the Geographic Unit; 
and 
• Must pay regular Member dues on an annual basis OR may apply for reduced 
membership dues. 
The constitution has similar conditions for membership, stating that "members of the 
SOCIETY shall be those individuals who are interested in the objects of the SOCIETY and who 
meet the requirements for MEMBERS or STUDENT MEMBERS, as provided in the Bylaws." 
(Emphasis in original). The bylaws further confirm that council members may elect to admit any 
individual "who meets any of the following requirements for formal training, experience, or 
employment in a chemical science or in a related field of natural science, engineering, technology, or 
science education." They then list the education or training requirements as a bachelor's degree or 
higher, an associate's degree, licensure as a pre-college teacher, or significant documented work 
experience. Lastly, the Petitioner offered the bylaws for the , which reflect that 
"[m]embership is open to any individual who has a professional interest in topics selected for 
discussion by the " 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter ofG-N-C-
For all three associations, the constitutions and bylaws contain no membership requirements linked 
to an individual's achievements in the field. Each of these organizations necessitates an interest in 
its topic of focus, and may require a certain level of education, experience, or training. However, the 
documents provided contain no mention of the need to show outstanding achievements, as decided 
by national or internationally recognized experts in the field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner indicates that, for these organizations, "membership often requires 
scientists with significant contribution [sic] and require [sic] far more than mere employment or 
activity in [the Petitioner's] field." In this case, however, the 
submitted documents do not support 
the Petitioner's characterization of the requirements. Uncorroborated statements are of limited 
probative value and are not sufficient to meet the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of 
Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 
I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). To support his assertion, the Petitioner gives examples of 
scientists on membership committee who have impressive credentials. However, at issue 
is not whether counts those with outstanding achievements among its members, but whether 
requires such achievements. The record contains no evidence that 
requires outstanding achievements of all members, as judged by experts in the field. As a result, the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that his membership in any of these three organizations satisfies the 
plain language requirements of this criterion. 
Published material about the alien inprofessional 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. 
As evidence for this criterion, the Petitioner submitted documentation showing citations to his 
research papers in scholarly articles. The Director found that the references to the Petitioner's work 
did not demonstrate that the articles are about the Petitioner. On appeal, the Petitioner reiterates his 
position that articles citing his publications should be considered to be "about him." 
The Petitioner's own research papers contain numerous citations to publications by other scientists. 
Nevertheless, we consider the Petitioner's articles to be about his own research, not about the work 
of the scientists to whom he cites. Similarly, the Petitioner cannot demonstrate that others have 
published material about him simply by showing that they cite to articles he has authored. Rather, 
their articles are about their own research or recent findings in the field. For these reasons, the 
articles with citations to the Petitioner's research do not constitute qualifying "published materials 
about the" Petitioner. He has not met the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an allied field of specification for which classification is sought. 
The Director found the Petitioner met this criterion. The Petitioner submitted evidence showing that 
. he peer-reviewed scholarly articles for four academic journals. As a result, we agree that the 
Petitioner has met the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter ofG-N-C-
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
To satisfy this criterion, the evidence must establish that the Petitioner's contributions are not only 
original, but rise to the level of major significance in the field as a whole. See 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v). Regardless of the field, the plain language of the phrase "contributions of major 
significance in the field" requires an impact beyond one's employer and clients or 
customers. See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 135-136 (upholding a finding that a ballroom dancer had 
not met this criterion because she did not demonstrate her impact in the field as a whole). On appeal, 
the Petitioner notes he has offered eight letters of recommendation from those familiar with his 
work.3 The opinions of the Petitioner's references are not without weight and will be considered. 
We may use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron 
International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, we must also evaluate the content 
of those letters as to whether they support the Petitioner's eligibility. See Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 
at 376. See also Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 (concluding that USCIS' decision to give limited 
weight to uncorroborated assertions from practitioners in the field was not arbitrary and capricious). In 
this case, the letters contain opinions that the Petitioner is professionally respected. Nevertheless, 
the references are not accompanied by sufficient explanation or corroboration to adequately 
demonstrate the Petitioner's impact on the field as a whole. 
The Petitioner provided a letter from his Ph.D. advisor, who noted the projects 
pursued by the Petitioner while he was a student. also remarked on the importance of 
the Petitioner's current role as a regulatory scientist working to promote the sustainable use of 
agrochemicals. Although he wrote highly of the Petitioner, did not articulate how any 
of the Petitioner's contributions have been of major significance to the field as a whole. For 
example, while confirmed that the Petitioner's "well designed fish flow-through 
system served as a template to set up multiple units that facilitated conduct of various research 
projects," he did not identify the research teams that conducted these projects. Enabling future 
projects within one's own collaborative research group does not, without more explanation, 
demonstrate a wider impact in the field. 
The record further contains a letter from , team lead in charge of ten research 
scientists at the Petitioner's current employer. explained that 
the Petitioner has been involved in several important projects for and describes his duties and 
the importance of the products on which the Petitioner has worked. Although stated that 
the Petitioner's contributions to have been significant, he did not identify how the Petitioner's 
contributions have been significant in the field as a whole. Similarly, a letter from 
Director of division, emphasized the Petitioner's unique skills 
and performance within the company. This letter is· accompanied by a "Special Performance 
Award" from which, upon examination, is a letter to the Petitioner thanking him for his hard 
3 We discuss only a sampling of these letters, but have reviewed and considered each one. 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter ofG-N-C-
work. However, demonstrating the importance of the Petitioner's impact on his employer is not 
sufficient to meet this criterion. Similarly, the issue of whether there is a shortage of skilled workers 
with the Petitioner's skills is an issue under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor. 
§ 212(a)(5)(A)(i) ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5)(A)(i). 
a biologist employed with the , presented a 
seminar which the Petitioner attended in 2007. noted the Petitioner's research 
publications as well as the fact that he assisted other students with their own dissertations. He wrote: 
"Overall, [the Petitioner]'s contribution to the advancement of scientific research on emerging 
contaminants (antimicrobials, pharmaceuticals and synthetic steroid hormones) has been 
extraordinary." The letter did not go on to explain this contribution, why it is original, or how it is of 
major significance in the field. For example, affirmed that the Petitioner's "adapted 
approach in utilizing reduced BCF (bioconcentration factor) test design for accumulation assessment 
has been critical to achieve Reduce, Refine and Replace principles," but did not provide examples of 
any independent research group achieving these principles using the Petitioner's test design. Vague, 
solicited letters that do not explain how the Petitioner's contributions have already influenced the 
field are insufficient to establish original contributions of major significance in the field. Kazarian, 
580 F.3d at 1036. This letter is representative of those in the record, which assert the significance of 
the Petitioner's contributions based on the importance of his area of research, without providing 
specific examples of his impact in the field. In this case, as in others, recited the 
Petitioner's publications as evidence of his impact; however, he does not articulate how they have 
impacted the field upon dissemination in the field. 
The Petitioner provided a letter of recommendation from , a research 
scientist for the _ and a professor at the 
described the Petitioner's contributions as follows: 
[The Petitioner] adapted a test design with 
only one exposure concentration and a fewer number of sampling points (7 day 
uptake and 7 day depuration) and compared the results to those obtained from the 
standard 28 day exposure and 14 d [sic] elimination phases. The reduced test 
design is now well accepted in regulatory Test Guidelines (l 
The Petitioner did not provide the Test Guidelines themselves confirming a reliance on the 
Petitioner's design. While listed a 2012 publication as one of the sources he 
reviewed, the Petitioner's lists of citing articles do not include the 2012 guidelines. 
A letter from Manager at also 
discussed the Petitioner's utilization of a minimized test design implemented by the , but 
credited the design to a 2008 article by Neither of these letters explained how the 
Petitioner's use of a minimized or reduced test design constitutes a novel contribution. The letters 
also did not confirm how the Petitioner's work has had a significant impact on the field as a whole. 
6 
Matter of G-N-C-
To be considered credible testimony, the letters must contain sufficient detail and corroboration to 
support the opinions expressed. For these reasons, the written statements do not establish that the 
Petitioner has made significant contributions to the field as a whole. 
Finally, the Petitioner submitted evidence that he is well cited in the aggregate. Moreover, a few of 
the Petitioner's individual articles have garnered moderate citation. The examples of citing articles 
that the Petitioner provided, however, show that the authors cite the Petitioner's work as background 
information without reflecting heavy reliance on the Petitioner's work as a foundation of their own 
research. As a result, he has not satisfied this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media. 
The Director found the Petitioner satisfied this criterion. The Petitioner submitted documentation to 
show that he has authored numerous scholarly articles published in academic journals. As a result, 
we agree that the Petitioner has met the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
B. Summary 
As noted above, the documentation provided satisfies only two of the three required criteria. As a 
result, the Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement 
or at least three of the ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The material submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must show that the individual has 
achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage who has risen to 
the very top of his or her field of endeavor. Had the Petitioner satisfied at least three evidentiary 
categories, the next step would be a final merits determination that considers all of the submissions 
in the context of whether or not the Petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a "level of expertise indicating 
that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor," and (2) "that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her 
achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also 
Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20 (discussing a two-part review where the evidence is first counted and 
then, if satisfying the required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits 
determination). Although we need not provide the type of final merits determination referenced in 
Kazarian, a review of the record in the aggregate supports a finding that the Petitioner has not 
established the level of expertise required for the classification sought. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to 
establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. § 291 of the Act. Here, the Petitioner has 
not met that burden. 
7 
Matter ofG-N-C-
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofG-N-C-, ID# 14972 (AAO Jan. 4, 2016) 
8