dismissed EB-1A Case: Chemistry Research

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 13189490 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 26, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner , a chemistry researcher, 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner had satisfied at least three of ten initial evidentiary criteria, as required . 
The Director also concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that his entry into the United States 
will substantially benefit prospectively the United States. 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 aliens with extraordinary ability if: 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a pet1t10ner 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 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 Petitioner previously worked as a researcher at universities in India and Korea, and a pharmaceutical 
company in India. At the time he filed the petition, the Petitioner was a research associate at the University 
of1 ~ The Petitioner asserted his intention to remain at~ permanently if the 
petition were approved, but he did not submit evidence from D confirming that the rmplyer 
considered the position to be permanent. Six months after filing the petition, the Petitioner left for 
a position as a postdoctoral research instructor at the University otl I 
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 initially claimed to have satisfied three of these criteria, summarized below: 
• (iv), Participation as a judge of the work of others; 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance; and 
• (vi), Authorship of scholarly articles. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner met two of the criteria, numbered (iv) and (vi). On appeal, 
the Petitioner asserts that he also meets the other claimed criterion, numbered (v). 
Upon review of the record, as discussed below, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has 
satisfied the criteria numbered (iv) and (vi), but not (v). 
Evidence of the alien's original scient#fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions o_f major significance in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
In denying the petition, the Director stated that, while the Petitioner submitted detailed descriptions of his 
original contributions, the record does not establish the major significance of those contributions. 
Therefore, we will concentrate here on the question of major significance, rather than on the sometimes 
highly technical details of the Petitioner's contributions. We note that those technical details derive 
2 
largely from a series of letters in the record. The Petitioner asserts that these letters are of independent 
origin, but several of them are formatted in a manner similar or identical to the lengthy introductory letter 
submitted with the petition, sometimes with the same wording. For instance, five of the letters include 
the following section headings relating to the Petitioner's work atOUniversity: 
Project #1: .... I ___ _.I analogues with potent antiD activity 
Project #2: Synthesis of compounds as------.--r'signaling blockers for the 
treatment of Rheumatoid arthritis and inflammation 
Project #3: Discovery of a novel series o_,_J ----,,--...,,....--_.I derivatives a~ 
I I inhibitors ~---~ 
In four instances, the word "Rheumatoid" is arbitrarily capitalized, as above. Five letters also include the 
same misspelling, indicating that the Petitioner "published his findings in the Bullet [sic] of the Korean 
Chemical Society." The similarities in language strongly suggest a common author, whom we can infer 
to be the Petitioner himself. 1 
The Petitioner highlights five points on appeal, some more specific than others: 
• Petitioner has an outstanding record of peer review activity, indicating that he is 
widely recognized to have made significant contributions to his field; 
• Petitioner's research work has resulted in three patents, one of which has been 
assigned to a third-party company for commercial development; 
• Petitioner developed the first and only synthetic inhibitor l~~~I the compound 
I I which is sold by biotechnology companies around the world for use in 
scientific research; 
• Petitioner's publications have been highly cited by others working in his field; 
• Nine of Petitioner's publications were featured inL I which had the stated 
goal of highlighting the most important and innovative reactions developed in organic, 
bioorganic, medicinal, inorganic, and organometallic chemistry. 
Here, we address each of these points. 
Peer review: The Petitioner does not submit documentary evidence- existing separately from the petition 
- to show that the journals' publishers limit peer review activity to those who are "widely recognized to 
have made significant contributions." 
Patents: The Petitioner states: "The fact that [the Petitioner] has two granted patents is unequivocal 
evidence of the major significance of his original scientific research contributions." The issuance of a 
patent, however, attests to the originality of a particular invention or innovation, rather than its 
significance. 
1 Cf Mei Chai Ye v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 489 F.3d 517,519 (2d Cir. 2007) (an immigration judge may reasonably infer 
that when an asylum applicant submits strikingly similar affidavits, the applicant is the common source). 
3 
The president of a biochemical company that sellsl I to research laboratories states that 
the P~' s "research is of significant interest ... because he has demonstrated ... the synthesis of a 
novel L_Jinhibitor that is both more effective than conventional~ inhibitors and easier to 
manufacture, greatly impacting healthcare, biomedical research, and the economy of the United States." 
The Petitioner provides no direct evidence of the extent of this claimed impact. The very general claims 
quoted above have minimal probative value. 
The journal article which identified! I as an0inhibitor has 17 credited authors at eight 
universities in two countries. The Petitioner is the tenth-named author of the article; the first-named 
author did not work at the same university as the Petitioner. Given the size and diffusion of the 
researchers, it is reasonable to seek more details about the Petitioner's specific contributions to the project. 
A co-author asserts that the Petitioner "discoveredl I," but does not elaborate. This same co-author 
asserts thatl l"cures rheumatoid arthritis," but the record does not include objective documentary 
evidence to confirm this claim. Without supporting evidence, a claim of this magnitude has no weight 
and raises questions about the overall credibility of the letter in which it appeared. 
Another letter includes the claim that the Petitioner actuall~ developed I l but the writer of that 
letter, a vendor, claims no first-hand knowledge o~.._ __ __,'s discovery. The article co-authore~ by thl 
Petitioner indicates that some of the authors "screened our in-house chemical library and identifie 
0" indicating the compound was already present but undiscovered. 
The record establishes the commercial availability 0~ I, but the record lacks objective, independent 
evidence that would establish the significance of the Petitioner's work with the compound relative to the 
field as a whole. Letters from individual researchers who use I I do not necessarily represent a 
consensus within the field. The Petitioner has established tha~ I is useful for certain applications, 
but usefulness is not synonymous with major significance. 
Citations: Published articles are a key avenue by which a researcher may disseminate original 
contributions. Not every such contribution, however, is of major significance in the field. It is the 
Petitioner's burden to establish the significance of his published work. 
The Petitioner documents citation of his published work, and asserts that these citations demonstrate 
its influence and significance. The Director acknowledged the citations but declined to consider them 
in the context of determining the significance of the Petitioner's contributions because "the regulations 
contain a separate criterion regarding the authorship of scholarly articles." We disagree with the 
Director's reasoning here, because the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) deals only with the 
Petitioner's authorship of scholarly articles; the sign[ficance of those articles is properly considered 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). Heavy citation of a particular article is one way to measure that article's 
impact and influence. 2 
2 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 ADl 1-14 8 (Dec. 22, 2010), https://www. 
uscis.gov/legal-resources/policy-memoranda. 
4 
But it cannot suffice simply to show that citation has occurred. Rather, the Petitioner must establish that 
the citation rate of his published work is significantly high when compared with other published work in 
the same area. Here, the Petitioner has shown the number of citations his work has received, but he has 
not provided any basis for comparison with other work in the same area of research. 
The Petitioner has made original scientific contributions, but has not shown them to be of major 
significance in the field. 
Beyond the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), the Director concluded that the Petitioner has 
not shown that his entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the United States 
as required by section 203(b)(l)(A)(iii) of the Act. The Director must explain in writing the specific 
reasons for denial. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i). Here, the Director simply stated: "it has not been 
established that the beneficiary's entry will substantially benefit prospectively the United States," 
without explaining the specific reasons for reaching that conclusion. If this issue were the only basis 
for denial of the petition, then the lack of an explanation would have raised significant issues. But the 
above discussion precludes approval of the petition and a detailed discussion of the prospective benefit 
issue cannot change the outcome of this appeal. 3 
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 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 provided evidence of a productive career, and shown 
that some of his work is useful to others in his field. He has not, however, established a level of 
recognition of his work indicative of the required sustained national or international acclaim or 
demonstrating 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 section 203(b )(l)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The objective 
documentation in the record does not support the level of recognition and influence claimed in letters 
written specifically to support the petition, several of which show evidence of common authorship or 
at least reliance on a common template. The Petitioner's academic positions at, and since, the time of 
filing appear to amount to postdoctoral training, and do not reflect the demand for his services that 
one would expect from an acclaimed researcher at the top of the field. 
3 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); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516, 526 
n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
5 
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