dismissed EB-1A Case: Civil And Environmental Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8523716 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JULY 23, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a postdoctoral research associate, 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had 
satisfied only two of the initial evidentiary criteria, of which she 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 )(1) 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 postdoctoral research associate in the department of civil 
and environmental engineering at the University ofl I Because the 
Petitioner has not claimed or established that she has received a major, internationally recognized 
award, she 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 
evidentiaiy criteria, judging at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and scholarly aiiicles at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). The record reflects that the Petitioner reviewed papers for journals. In addition, she 
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 she meets an additional criterion, 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. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The Petitioner argues that she meets this criterion based on her journal reviews, publications in top 
journals, paper presentations at conferences, citations of her work by others, and recommendation 
letters. In order to satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner must establish that 
not only has she 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. 
As previously discussed, we have already considered the Petitioner's manuscript reviews under the 
judging criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). Moreover, although the Petitioner initially provided 
1 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation o{Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2. AFM Update AD/l-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 
emails requesting her to review papers for journals, she demonstrated that she conducted only two of 
the reviews prior to the filing of her petition. 2 In addition, the Petitioner did not establish how 
performing two manuscript reviews for journals constitutes an original contribution of major 
significance in the field. Here, the Petitioner did not show, for example, how she impacted or 
influenced the field through her paper reviews beyond the individual journals. 3 
Further, the Petitioner argues that she has published in top journals and has presented at conferences. 
Again, we considered the Petitioner's publication history under the scholarly articles criterion at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). Moreover, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that publication of articles in 
highly ranked journals or presentation of work at distinguished conferences 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), ajf'd in part, 596 F.3d 1115. Here, the 
Petitioner did not establish that publication in a popular or highly ranked journal or presentation at a 
distinguished conference alone demonstrates a contribution of major significance in the field. 
Moreover, as it relates to the citation of her work, the Petitioner initially submitted evidence from 
Google Scholar showing that six of her articles or conference papers received 45, 27, 10, 5, 4, and 1 
citation(s), respectively. In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner provided updated figures 
from Google Scholar reflecting that seven of her articles or conference papers received 52, 34, 10, 7, 
5, 4, and 2 citations, respectively. The Petitioner did not show whether the increased citations occurred 
in papers published after the filing of her petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). Regardless, this 
criterion requires the Petitioner to establish that she has made original contributions of major 
significance in the field. Thus, the burden is on the Petitioner to not only identify her original 
contributions but to also explain why they are of major significance in the field. Generally, citations 
can serve as an indication that the field has taken interest in a petitioner's research or written work. 
However, the Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that her citations to her work are commensurate 
with contributions of major significance. 4 Here, the Petitioner did not articulate the significance or 
relevance of the citations to her articles or conference papers. For example, she did not demonstrate 
that these citations are unusually high in her field or how they compare to other articles that the field 
views as having been majorly significant. Although her citations indicate the some in the field have 
referenced her work, the Petitioner did not establish that her citation numbers to her work rise to the 
level of major significance consistent with this regulatory criterion. 5 
2 In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided four emails requesting her to perform 
manusc1ipt reviews afier the filing of her petition. The Petitioner must establish that eligibility requirements for the 
immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time of the filing and continuing through adjudication. See 8 C.F .R. 
§ 103.2(b)(l). Regardless, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that she actually conducted those reviews. 
3 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). 
4 The Petitioner also did not demonstrate that any of her other articles or conference papers resulted in original contiibutions 
of major significance in the field. 
5 See USC IS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, supra, at 8-9 (providing an example that peer-reviewed articles in 
3 
In addition, the record reflects that the Petitioner provided data from Clarivate Analytics comparing 
her citations per paper per year to the average of citations per paper per year. Comparing average 
citations to the Petitioner's citations, however, does not automatically establish majorly significant 
contributions in her field, nor did she show that all papers garnering citations above the average for 
the year qualify as majorly significant. Once again, the issue for this criterion is whether the Petitioner 
has made original contributions of major significance in the field rather than where her citations fall 
among the averages of others in her field. Here, a more appropriate analysis, for example, would be 
to compare the Petitioner's citations to other similarly, highly cited articles, as well as factoring in 
other corroborating evidence, in order to gauge the field's view of a contribution of major significance. 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that her written work, using Clarivate Analytics methodology 
through average citation numbers, resulted in original contributions of major significance in the field. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner initially offered samples of the first page of articles claiming that they cited 
to her work, but none of the pages reflected the citation or reference to any of her work. In response 
to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner provided portions of articles that cited to her work. A review of 
those excerpts, though, do not show the significance of the Petitioner's research in the overall field 
beyond the authors who cited to her work in those portions. In addition, the partial articles do not 
distinguish or highlight the Petitioner's work from the other cited papers. Moreover, the limited papers 
do not indicate that the Petitioner's work is authoritative or othe1wise viewed as being majorly 
significant in the field. In the case here, the Petitioner has not shown that her published articles through 
citations rise to a level of major significance consistent with this regulatory criterion. 
Moreover, the Petitioner resented screenshots from cee.illinois.edu and a press release from 
.__ ___ --r-----,-....--s===d.i....::C::..:enter for Water Research identically announcing that I I the 
Universi an National Laborato "recentl received a rant to initiate their 
project,.__ ______________________________ ... which aims 
to more accurately predict extreme weather events and reduce impacts at the neighborhood level." 
However, the Petitioner did not establish that such minimal reporting or coverage indicates an original 
contributions of major significance in the field. Further, the evidence speculates on the possibility of 
having an impact at some point in the future, such as 1 lwill combine natural science, social 
science, data science and engineering to not only more accurately predict weather events ... , but also 
assess vulnerabilities within neighborhoods," "researchers also hope to facilitate public discussion and 
better prepare community members for extreme weather events," "[t]he project will provide improved 
assessments of the likelihood of extreme weather impacts in neighborhoods across the city, which can 
be used to direct resources to help those most at risk," '"the project will identify howl I 
infrastructure ... can be used by local communities to reduce their vulnerahilitv to extreme weather," 
'l I project team will use this infmmation in con·unction withl !records to 
learn how different levels o interact with existin infrastructure," "[a]ssessments 
oflinks between.__ __________________ ~ will help to reduce health impacts 
of heat waves, and these new results will support ........ _ _.infrastructure recommendations to reduce 
extreme weather vulnerability inl !communities," and "[ w ]hile the current project focuses on 
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 auth01itative in the field, may 
be probative of the significance of the person's contributions to the field of endeavor). 
4 
thel I area, it has the potential to expand to cities across the globe." ( emphasis added). While 
the Petitioner's work on the project may show promise, she did not demonstrate how her work already 
qualifies as a contribution of major significance in the field, rather than prospective, potential impacts. 
Here, the significant nature of th~ !project has yet to be determined. 
Finally, the Petitioner submitted about a half dozen recommendation letters that generally recount her 
research and findings and indicate their publications in journals or presentation at conferences. 
Although they reflect the novelty of her work, they do not sufficiently articulate how her research and 
findings have been considered of such importance and how their im act on the field rises to the level 
of major significance required by this criterion. For instance · · · the 
Petitioner's "breakthrough research on the application o-t===l theory to.__ ______ _. and 
I I forecasting has resulted in three journal arti~Te"s7~-imh "[t]his cutting-edge research has 
important technological implications in developing real-timec=] measurements and reliablec=] 
forecasting under extreme I I events. "6 Although r==:::==] pointed out that her work 
resulted in a journal publication and opined about important technological implications, he did not 
further elaborate and explain the implications and how the field views them as important. Again, 
publication or presentation alone is not sufficient under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). See Kazarian v. 
USCIS. 580 F.3d at 1036, aff'd in part, 596 F.3d at 1115. 
Likewise, the Petitioner provided a letter from I O I who highlighted the Petitioner's 
publications and presentations. For example,! I stated the Petitioner's "articles have been 
published in international peer-reviewed journals including: Advances in Water Resources, Journal 
of [H]ydrology, and Journal of [H]ydrolo ical E n ineering which are high demanding journals in 
the field of hydrological sciences and ' and she "also received the reat honor, in 
addition to other invitations to give talks to the .__ ____ .....,-----..... _______ ..... Congress 
American Geophysical Union meeting , International Symposium on 
..==========------........!..........:::...._" Here, I I did not explain how the articles or 
presentati_ons have somehow impacted or affected the field in a significant manner. Moreover, while 
I !claimed that "the method and theory she developed has wide applications inl I I I as well.__ _______ __,engineering," he did not elaborate, identify the "wide" 
applications, and describe the impacts of her method and theory in the field. 
In addition, similar to the I I media reports discussed above, the l~eculate on the 
potential of her work, such as: the Petitioner's "research will clearly benefitL___Jand the United 
States as a whole" I p, and "[t]he identified relationship rn further be used to 
predict the complete profile of I I at a monitored site with limited samplings" and "this 
type of comparative study where feasibilities of multiple approaches that were well established to 
solve an important problem were analyzed and discussed in depth will likely get excellent citations in 
the years to come due to its value in the field" 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 her work has already impacted, influenced, or affected the 
overall field in a significant nature. 
6 Although we discuss a sampling of letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
5 
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. 7 Letters that specifically 
articulate how a petitioner's contributions are of major significance to the field and its impact on 
subsequent work add value. 8 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. 9 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). 
For the reasons discussed above, considered both individually and collectively, the Petitioner has not 
shown that she has made original contributions of major significance in the field. 
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 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 I&N Dec. 953,954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner 
has not shown that the significance of her 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 she is one of the small percentage who has risen to 
the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act and 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
Although the Petitioner has reviewed manuscripts, conducted research, and authored scholarly articles, 
the record does not contain sufficient evidence establishing that she is among the upper echelon in her 
field. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated her 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. 
7 Although we discussed a sampling ofletters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
8 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9. 
9 Id. at 9. See also Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036, ajf'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). 
6