dismissed EB-1A Case: Environmental Chemistry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 17039622 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 28, 2021 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a postdoctoral research associate in environmental chemistry, 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 fust 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 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 )(1 )(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to individuals 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 earned a Ph.D. in µublic health at the Universi o in 2015 and 
undertook postdoctoral training atl_ I Universit .-------------'---fr-o_m_2_0_15-to_2_0_1_7__,. She is now a 
postdoctoral research associate at the University o in H-lB nonimmigrant status. 
The Petitioner's research concerns I I pollutants. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or shown that she 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). The Petitioner claims 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 she also meets the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), relating to original 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
Upon review of the record, we conclude that the Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the 
evidence, that she meets all three claimed criteria. There is no dispute that she has made original 
contributions; the question is whether those contributions are of major significance in the field. 
The Petitioner is the co-author of highly cited articles relating to the detection of certain pollutants in the 
I I The record indicates that other researchers are using the data that the Petitioner gathered, 
as well as detection and measurement techniques that the Petitioner developed or refined. We will not 
repeat the highly technical details here, but the Petitioner has established, by a preponderance of the 
evidence, that some of her contributions have major significance in the field. 
2 
B. Final Merits Determination 
Because the Petitioner submitted the required initial evidence, we will evaluate whether she has 
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, her sustained national or international acclaim and 
that she is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, and that her 
achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. In a final merits 
determination, we analyze a petitioner's accomplishments and weigh the totality of the evidence to 
determine if their successes are sufficient to demonstrate that they have extraordinary ability in the 
field of endeavor. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also 
Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 1 In this matter, we determine that the Petitioner has not established 
eligibility. 
Given the structure of the regulations and the two-step analysis described in Kazarian, the satisfaction of 
three evidentiary criteria does not automatically or presumptively establish eligibility. Some criteria are 
much more easily satisfied than others, and we must consider each piece of evidence through the lens of 
sustained acclaim. 
The record as a whole does not establish sustained national or international acclaim. The Petitioner has 
written scholarly articles and peer reviewed manuscripts by others, but the record does not show that she 
has done so at a level that elevates her above most others in her field, or that these activities amount to 
rare privileges rather than expected activities of a researcher in that field. Some activities satisfy 
regulatory criteria, but in a manner that neither reflects prior acclaim nor results in subsequent acclaim. 
For example, the publication of scholarly articles, as described at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), is not a 
privilege reserved for top researchers. Rather, it appears to be routine and expected in many academic 
disciplines. 
Likewise, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) is broad enough to encompass a wide range of 
activities that involve judging the work of others, whether or not such judging entails, or results from, 
sustained acclaim in the field. The record shows that the Petitioner was reviewing manuscripts while 
she was still a doctoral student, and that peer review is a routine part of the publication process rather than 
a rare privilege extended only to top experts. (A document in the record refers to "2 million researchers" 
performing peer review, and describes efforts to recruit still more reviewers.) The Petitioner has not 
explained why her review of a high number of manuscripts equates to acclaim. She has not shown that 
the most accomplished and recognized researchers perform more peer review. 
The Petitioner has solicited letters from other researchers who speak highly of her talents and 
contributions, but the Petitioner does not establish that these views represent a consensus that 
demonstrates sustained national or international acclaim. In this context, we note that at the time of filing, 
the Petitioner stated that she seeks employment as an assistant professor atl !University, 
or an unspecified position with thel I of the U.S. Environmental Protection 
1 See also 6 USC1S Policy Manual F.2(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual (stating that USCIS officers should then 
evaluate the evidence together when considering the petition in its entirety to determine if the petitioner has established, 
by a preponderance of the evidence, the required high level of expertise for the immigrant classification). 
3 
Agency itj I The record contains no evidence that either of those prospective employers 
offered her a position. The Petitioner has not established a demand for her services commensurate with 
her claimed reputation in the field. Related to the above point, her status as a postdoctoral research 
associate indicates that, at the time of filing, the Petitioner was still undergoing training ( albeit at a high 
level) under the direction of another researcher. It is possible for a researcher to reach the top of the field 
at such a relatively early stage of one's career, but there is no presumption that involvement in influential 
research at the postdoctoral stage is indicative ofindividual acclaim. More often, it results from affiliation 
with a mentor or laboratory with an already-established reputation. Employment with a prestigious 
institution shows that the institution has a high opinion of one's qualifications, but such employment does 
not inherently confer national or international acclaim. 
The Petitioner places significant emphasis on citations to her published work. The record does not 
establish a pattern of consistently high citation of that work. Rather, three of her 32 articles account for 
half the citations as of the filing date. Furthermore, the Petitioner has not shown that her most recent 
work before the filing date at the University I I has attracted comparable attention. The 
Petitioner submits charts showing percentile rankings of article citations, but owing to the nature of such 
data, even a very small number of citations can reach a high percentile during the period immediately 
following publication. 
While the Petitioner has shown that she participated in well-received research, the record as a whole does 
not show that she has attained the sustained acclaim that the statute and regulations require. 
III. CONCLUSION 
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 not shown that the recognition of her work is 
indicative of the required sustained national or international acclaim or demonstrates 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 )(1 )(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 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. 
4