dismissed EB-1A Case: Electrical Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and hp.migration 
Services 
MATTER OF L-D-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 19, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an electrical engineer, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in 
the sciences. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(1 )(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 Form ·J-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had satisfied only two of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, of 
which he must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional documentation and a briet: arguing that he meets at least 
three of the ten criteria. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )( 1 )(A) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraotdinary ability if: 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, busines1s, 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 111 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 
.
A-fatter of L-D-
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets. forth two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate a one-time achievement (that is, a major, 
internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does ncit submit this evidence, then· he or she 
must provide 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). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner to submit comparable 
material if he or she is able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not 
readily apply to the individual's occupation. 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirem\;'.nts, 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 ~mong the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F .3d 1115 (9th Cir. 20 I 0) 
(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); R(ial v. USC!S, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by·its quality," as well as the principle 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 trne." Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a senior staff engineer at in California. 
Because he 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). In denying the petition, the Director' found that the Petitioner met only two of the initial 
evidentiary criteria, judging under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and scholarly articles under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). The record reflects that the Petitioner served as a peer reviewer of manuscripts 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 maintains that he meets one additional criterion, discussed below. We have 
reviewed all of the evidence in the record and conclude that it does not support a finding that the 
Petitioner satisfies the requirements ofat least three criteria. 
2 
.
Matter of L-D-
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Evidence, of the alien ·s original scientffic. scholarly. artistic. athletic. or business-related 
contributions o.f mc{jor 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. 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. Here, we will address the Petitio11er's arguments on appeal and determine 
whether he has shown original contributions of major significance in the field consistent with this 
regulatory criterion. 
The Petitioner contends that he "has submitted evidence of numerous individual citations of his work 
that emphasize the major significance of his research." Specifically, the Petitioner generally 
references to his previously offered samples of research articles that cited to his work. For instance, 
the Petitioner provided a partial article entitled, 
in which the authors cited to his 2007 Journal 
of Applied Physics aiticle. 1 However, the article does not distinguish the Petitioner's written work 
from the other 424 cited papers. Further, the sample articles do not show the significance of the 
Petitioner's research to the overall field beyond the authors who cited to his work. 2 In the case here, 
the Petitioner has not shown that his published aiticles thrqugh citations rise to a level of "major 
significance" consistent with this regulatory criterion. 
Likewise, the Petitioner maintains that his "research was also acknowledged in a book chapter titled 
· and "the fact that these authors chose 
to dedicate so much attention to [the Petitioner's] work is a clear sign that his research is of major 
importance to the field at large." The record contains excerpts of the book chapter; however, the 
evidence does not support the Petitioner's assertion that the authors "dedicate[ d] so much attention" 
to his work. The passages provided by the Petitioner show that the authors devoted three sentences 
and used two figures in citing to his 2005 article; the book chapter is not about 
the Petitioner's written article of research. Regardless, the Petitioner has not established that a single 
book chapter, which cites to an article, is indicative of a contribution of major significance to the 
overall field. · ., 
1 Although we discuss a sample article, we have reviewed and considered eaci1 one. 
2 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of' Evidence Submilled with Certain Form /-140 
Petitions: Revisions lo the Adjudicator .'s Field Manual (AF!vl) Chapter 22.2, AF/vi Update ADI /-/4 8-9 (Dec. 22, 2010) , 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html; see also Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 (upholding 
a finding that a ballroom dancer ha.d not met this criterion because she did not corroborate her i111pact in the field as a 
whole). 
3 
.
Mq_tter of L-D-
In addition, the Petitioner argues that "leading researchers such as have 
repeatedly and significantly relied on his work in their own pioneering research studies." The 
Petitioner offered a recommendation letter from who indicated that he applied the 
Petitioner's research to four of his own studies. 3 For example, stated that "[m]y study 
is therefore a key point of reference for other electrical engineering researchers, and [the 
Petitioner's] research laid the foundation of my project ," and "[ m ]y success in this regard owed 
greatly to [the Petitioner ' s] previous research , since I applied his effective medium theory to my 
investigation." While · praises the Petitioner and credits him for assisting in his own 
research and work, he did not demonstrate how the Petitio11er's research has greatly impacted the 
overall field. 
, Further, the Petitioner contends that the Director improperly indicated his citations to other 
researchers and engineers who submitted recommendation letters on his behalf. 4 Moreover, ·the 
Petitioner claims that the Director imposed a threshold number of total citations that is apparently 
required to demonstrate major significance . ln general, the 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 ac.claim and demonstrates that he is among the small 
percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor in a final merits determination if the Director 
determined he· met at least three of the regulatory criteria. See Kazarian 596 F.3d
0 
at 1115. 
However, the comparison of citations to a particular scientific article may be relevant for this 
criterion in order to establish the field's general view of a contribution of major significance. 
Again, this criterion requires the Petitioner to establish that he has made original contributions of 
major significance in the field . Thus , the burden is on the Petitioner to identify his original 
contributions and explain why they are of major significance to the field. As the Petitioner has 
submitted evidence of his citation history from Google Scholar, he must show how those citations 
qualify as contributions of major significance. For instance, as indicated, the Petitioner presented 
evidence reflecting that his highest cited article received 121 citations at initial filing. In this case, 
however, the Petitioner did not articulate the significance orrelevance of that number. 5 Although his 
citations are indicative that his research has received some attention from the field, the Petitioner di<l 
n'ot demonstrate that this citation number reflects that his article has been majorly significant to the 
field.6 Generally, citations can serve as an indication that the field has tak~n interest in a petitioner's 
3 While we· address letter, we have reviewed and considered his other recommendation letters included in 
the record. 
4 For instance, the Director compared the Petitioner's citations (1,310 total citations and 121, 64, and 63 for his highest 
three cited articles) to (12,665 total citations and 1,368 for his highest citation article), 
(8,419 total citations and 832 for his highest cited aiticle ), and (21,459 total citations and 2,785 for 
his highest cited article). 
5 As discussed by the Director, the record appears to reflect that the Petitioner's' field contains articles that have been 
cited in the thousands. 
6 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra. at 8-9 (providing an example that peer-reviewed articles in 
scholarly journals tha·t 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). 
4 
.
Matter of L-D-
work. The Petitioner, however, has not sufficiently identified the specific contributions he has made 
through his written work , nor has he shown that his citations for any of his published articles are 
commensurate with contributions of major significance. 
In addition, the Petitioner provided data from Clarivate Analytics regarding baseline citation rntes 
and percentiles by year of publication for various research fields. The Director found CA's 
information to be "out-of-date " and "highly skewed ."7 On appeal , the Petitioner provides evidence 
showing that the data is updated bi-monthly and an email from a repre sentative of CA who explained 
that "[t]he word skew simply describes a natural phenomenon of _citation distributions: a few papers 
receive many cites, whereas most papers receive few or no cites" and "[t]here is no 'thumb on the 
scale' here, no skew , no inflation of an individual researcher's credentials into the top 10 percentile 
or deflation out of the top IO percentile." Further , the Petitioner presents a document that appears to 
be self-compiled entitled "ln-Field Author Comparator" regarding to his citation count percentiles 
and paper count percentiles. The Petitioner claims that the data was .derived fro1,11 "Microsoft 
Research " and compares his research impact to that of other researchers in elect~ical engineering , 
microelectronics , and photonics . Specifically , the Petitioner asserts that " Microsoft Research data 
establishes that [he] is among the top 0.08% of researchers in the field in terms of citation impact 
and the top 0.05% of researchers in the field of research productivity." , 
The comparative ranking to baseline or average citation rates, however , does not automatically 
establish majorly significant contributions to the field. Moreover, as discussed, the comparison of 
the Petitioner's cumu)J:itive citations to others in the field is more relevant in a final merits 
determination. Again , the issue for this criterion is whether the Petitioner has made original 
contributions of niajor significance in the field rather than where his citation rates rank among others 
in his field. Here , a more appropriate analysis , for example, would be to compare the Petitioner ' s 
citations to . other similarly ·, highly cited articles that the field views as having been of major 
significance, as well as factoring in other corroborating evidence. 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. 
Moreover, the Petitioner maintains that implemented his 
technology and references a letter from integrated photonics engineering manager, who 
indicated that the Petitioner -developed a silicon photonics platform , which later licensed , and 
claimed that "[b ]ecause of[the Petitioner's] research, we have been. able to transform the indu-stry of 
optical communication." Similarly , the Petitioner offered a letter from 
deputy executive director at the who also · stated that -the Petitioner 
contributed to the development of the silicon photonics platform and "this technology has been 
licensed to over a dozen companies across the world." While the Petitioner prese11ted evidence of 
7 According to the CA documentation submitted by the Petitioner. "[c)itation frequency is highly skewed, with many 
infrequently cited papers and relatively few highly cited papers, -Consequently, citation rates should not be interpreted as 
representing the central tendency of the distribution." 
( 
5 
Matter 9.f l-D-
· licensing payments, he did not show that his silicon photonics platform is viewed by the greater field 
. as a contribution of _major significance. The_ Petitioner's letters do not contain specific, detailed 
infonnation explaining the unusual influence or high impact the platform has had on the overall field 
without violating ariy confidentiality agreements. In addition to providing broad aue·stations, they do 
not show why it has been considered of such importance and how its impact on the field rises to the 
level required by this criterion. Letters that specifically articulate how a petitioner's contributions 
are of major significance ~o the field and its impact on subsequent work add· value. 8 On the other 
hand, letters that lack specifics ·and use hyperbolic l_anguage do not add value, and are not considered· 
to be probative evidence that m~y form the basis for meeting this criterion. 9 Moreover, USCIS need 
not accept primarily conclusory statements. 1756. Inc.,;_ The U.S. A11)1 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 he has made origi_nal contributions of major significance in the field. 
B. 0-1 Nonimmigrant Statu_s 
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, and case law. Many Form I-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 (O.O.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 nonimm_igrant petition on behalf of an individual,_ we are 
not bound to follow that finding in the adjudication of another immigration petition. Louisiana 
Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, No. 98-2855, 2000 WL 282785, at *2 (E.D. La. 2000). 
Ill. 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 11.19-20. 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. 
8 • . . 
See USCIS Po]icy fV!emorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9. 
9 Id. at 9. See also Kazarian, 580 F.3d at I 036, aff'd in part 596 F.3d at 1115 (holding that letters that repeat the 
regulatory language but do not explain how an individuars contributions have already influenced the field are 
insufficient to establish original contributions of major significance in the fie I~)-
6_ 
Matter of l-D-
/ 
The Petitioner seeks a highly.restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields,1rather 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 <?f 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. IO 1-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also 
section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate. that the 
Petitioner has garnered n·ational 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 )(1 )(A) of the 
Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2): 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that he qualifies for classification as an 
individual of extraordinary abili.ty. · 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of L-D-, ID# 2091154 (AAO Feb. 19, 2019) 
. \ 
..,