dismissed EB-1A Case: Environmental Science And Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 7119142 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : APR. 23, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a scientist in the field of environmental science and engineering, 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 Petitioner established 
that he met only two of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for this classification, of which me must meet 
at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims that he meets up to three additional evidentiary criteria and is 
otherwise eligible for the benefit sought. 
The petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence . 
Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369,375 (AAO 2010). The Administrative 
Appeals Office (AAO) reviews the questions in this matter de novo . See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 
I&N Dec . 53 7, 53 7 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review, we agree with the Director's determination 
that the Petitioner did not meet three criteria. Accordingly, 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 is currently employed as a lead analyst with.__ _________ __. where he has 
worked since 2011. He received his bachelor's degree in civil engineering at University ofO and 
completed his graduate studies au l where he received a master's degree 
in environmental engineering in 2002 and a Doctor of Philosophy in engineering and applied science 
in 2010. Previously, he served as a research associate atl I Training and Research Center and 
as a doctoral research fellow for the I I at~ The Petitioner 
indicates that he intends to establish a limited liability company and provide services in the area of 
environmental engineering and consulting. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner 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). 
The Petitioner claims that he meets five of the ten initial evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 1 The Director found that the Petitioner met two of the evidentiary criteria relating 
to participation as a judge of the work of others in his field, and authorship of scholarly articles. See 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi). The Petitioner has met the judging criterion by providing evidence 
that he has peer reviewed manuscripts for several professional publications, including Journal of Arid 
Environments, Asian Journal ofGeoi11formatics, and Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology. 
In addition, the record reflects that the Petitioner has authored scholarly articles published by scientific 
1 The Petitioner initially claimed that he met a sixth criterion, relating to published materials (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii)), 
but has not pursued this claim on appeal. Therefore, we deem this issue to be waived and will not discuss this criterion. 
See, e.g., Matter of M-A-S-, 24 I&N Dec. 762, 767 n.2 (BIA 2009). 
2 
journals including Journal of Arid Environments, Canadian Journal of Remote Sensing, GIScience & 
Remote Sensing, and Rangeland Ecology and Management. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he also meets the evidentiary criteria relating to nationally or 
internationally recognized awards or prizes, membership in associations that require outstanding 
achievements of their members, and original contributions of major significance, as discussed below. 
After reviewing all the evidence in the record, we find that the Petitioner has not met a third criterion. 
Documentation of the individual's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) 
The Petitioner claims to meet this criterion based on his receipt of a Doctoral Research Fellowship 
from the~---------------~· In order to fulfill this criterion, the Petitioner 
must demonstrate that his prizes or awards are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence 
in the field of endeavor. 2 Relevant considerations regarding whether the basis for granting the prizes 
or awards was excellence in the field include, but are not limited to, the criteria used to grant the prizes 
or awards, the national or international significance of the prizes or awards in the field, and the number 
of awardees or prize recipients as well as any limitations on competitors. 3 
The Petitioner provided a copy of the award notification e-mail he received from I 
University, advising him that he was "awarded an .... l _________________ __. 
Subsurface Science Graduate Fellowship to support study leading to the Ph.D. in Engineering and 
Applied Science." The fellowship provided the Petitioner with an annual stipend of $25,000 and a 
waiver of the university's tuition and fees for a two-year period. The fellowship was offered with the 
understanding that the Petitioner's dissertation research would be in the general area of subsurface 
science. 
The Petitioner's initial cover letter also provided background inforation GD tbel I notjng that jf 
is a coalition of eight universities working in cooperation with the._ _____________ __._ 
The Petitioner described thel I fellowship as a "highly prestigious and competitive award" and 
stated that "[t]he candidates were judged on prior productivity and the novelty and potential of the 
proposed project. Only top 3% of the researchers from the eight universities received the award." 
However, the Petitioner did not submit any supporting evidence from the I I regarding the 
fellowship, the basis for granting the award, the number of recipients, and any limitations placed on 
potential recipients. 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director advised the Petitioner of additional documentary 
evidence he could submit to establish that his I I fellowship satisfies this criterion, while noting 
that generally, honors such as fellowships are given to students or early career professionals in the 
field and may not qualify as prizes or awards for excellence. In response to the RFE, the Petitioner 
submitted: a document providing background information regarding thel I a February 200lc=] 
2 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form I-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJ 1-14 6 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html. 
3 Id. 
3 
News Release published on the website orf,.' -~-----------~-----------1 
announcin · · of a new director and a 2002 article titled '----~----' 
~------------------------~ published by Proceedings of 
the 2002 American Society for En~i1eering !Education Annual Conference and Exposition, which 
describes the partnership between the the □, and I I Of these documents, orly the I I I background document mentions the doctoral fellowship program, stating that the 
"allocated $1.4 million to highly qualified Ph.D. students for multiple-year stipends ($25,000 each 
year, equivalent to an NSF doctoral fellowship, plus $10,000 for tuition/fees and laboratory support), 
beginning fall 2002." 
In a letter accompanying the RFE response, former counsel stated that there was "no precise 
information available about the number of applicants" for thel I fellowship, but noted that, in 
addition to the graduate student applicants from the eight member universities of thel I "it is 
estimated that approximately 2,000 researchers from I I and D were competing for the 
award." Counsel further stated that "thel I fellowship is similar to NSF Fellowship which means 
I I funds the person, notl the prlject.~ [Petitioner] was competing for this award among the 
researchers ... that included andl__Jscientists and not just the students." 
However, as noted, the RFE response lacked supporting documentation to corroborate counsel's claim 
that thel !fellowship was not limited to graduate students. Assertions of counsel do not constitute 
evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988) ( citing Matter of Ramirez­
Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980)). Counsel's statements must be substantiated in the record 
with independent evidence, which may include affidavits and declarations. The limited documentation 
submitted regarding the fellowship program, from the I I's own publication, indicates that the 
D fellowship was established for Ph.D. students. 
On appeal, the Petitioner reiterates that he competed against I I andD scientists for his 
fellowship award and not just other graduate students from the eightl I consortium universities. 
He indicates that he is submitting evidence of the application process for the I I fellowship 
program, but this ~e is not included with the a eal exhibits. He also states that he is submitting 
"an opinion ofthel__J program" from otj I University, who, according to 
the Petitioner, indicates that "the .__ _ _.fe ows Ip IS equivalent to National Science Foundation 
fellowships." The submitted "opinion" froml I is a news release published """on~th=e ____ __. 
University website, noting that two Ph.D. students from that university received an~-~ fellowship 
in 2016. While he states that the fellowships are "equivalent to National Science Foundation 
fellowships," that statement appears to refer to the amount of the stipend ($25,000 annually). 
The Petitioner has not submitted independent evidence from thel !regarding the number of 
applicants, the scope of the field of eligible applicants, the criteria used for selection, and the number 
of fellowships granted annually. The limited evidence in the record reflects that the program accepts 
applications from graduate students enrolled at the eight universities that form thd I but does not 
substantiate the Petitioner's claims tlat eliribility extends to professional research scientists working 
for the I I's partners I I and . 
Although the fellowship may be recognized atl I by the other members of thel I and by 
O's partner organizations, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the fellowship, which consists 
4 
of a stipend to conduct graduate research, qualifies as a prize or award for excellence in the field. The 
Petitioner did not show the field's national or international recognition of this fellowship. As noted by 
the Director, such honors are generally given to students or early career professionals and inherently 
exclude established experts and professionals from consideration. Moreover, academic awards and 
honors received while preparing for a vocation generally do not constitute nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. Accordingly, we agree with the 
Director's determination that the Petitioner did not establish that he meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the individual's membership in associations in the field for which 
class[fication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or .fields. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) 
The Petitioner claims that he meets this criterion based on his membership in Sigma Xi, a scientific 
research society with 60,000 members worldwide. In order to satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner must 
show that membership in the association is based on being judged by recognized national or 
international experts as having outstanding achievements in the field for which classification is 
sought. 4 
The Petitioner submitted a letter from Sigma Xi confirming that he was duly elected as a "full member" 
in 2016, as well as a copy of Sigma Xi's constitution and bylaws. The letter explains that membership 
in Sigma Xi is by nomination only and that "[ f]ull membership is conferred upon those who have 
demonstrated noteworthy achievements in research." The Sigma Xi bylaws define "noteworthy 
achievement" as follows: 
Noteworthy achievement in research specified for election or promotion to full 
membership ... must be evidenced by publications, patents, written reports or a thesis 
or dissertation. Membership in the Society is neither linked to the possession of any 
degree nor contingent upon belonging to some other organization. 
The accompanying letter further clarifies that "Sigma Xi interprets 'noteworthy achievement' to 
include primary authorship of two papers ('Paper' includes refereed journal articles, patents, or 
internal reports. An earned doctoral degree may be substituted for one paper)." In addition, the letter 
indicates that "[t]he Society also considers career preparation, career path, quality of research and 
similar factors." 
The Director determined that the association bylaws do not reflect that Sigma Xi requires outstanding 
achievements as a requirement for membership, or that it relies on recognized national or 
internationally experts to determine which individuals qualify for membership. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director's decision demonstrates a lack of understanding of 
the membership process. He explains that he self-nominated through the "Committee on 
4 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, supra, at 6 (providing an example of admission to membership in the 
National Academy of Sciences as a Foreign Associate that requires individuals to be nominated by an academy member, 
and membership is ultimately granted based upon recognition of the individual's distinguished achievements in original 
research). 
5 
Qualifications on Membership," which consists of "members who have shown outstanding 
achievements themselves." The Petitioner maintains that he "was selected based on [his] outstanding 
achievement" stating that "[ e ]ven though bylaws demand noteworthy achievements of members, as 
an original investigator in a field of pure or applied science, they also warrant outstanding 
achievements for the foll membership." Finally, he refers to his membership letter signed by Sigma 
Xi leadership, emphasizing that it states: "We are proud that your outstanding achievements have 
earned you a place within our international community of scientists and engineers." 
Reviewed in its totality, the evidence does not demonstrate that membership in Sigma Xi requires 
outstanding achievements as judged by recognized national or international experts in the Petitioner's 
field or discipline. First, the Petitioner has not shown that Sigma Xi's requirement that prospective 
members provide evidence of "noteworthy achievement in research" is tantamount to imposing an 
"outstanding achievement" requirement for membership. While the letter from Sigma Xi indicates 
that the association "considers career preparation, career path, quality of research and similar factors" 
in the membership process, this statement is not adequately supported by objective evidence of how 
these factors are considered or weighed. The record does not establish the process by which 
prospective members are evaluated, nor does it demonstrate that Sigma Xi imposes additional 
qualitative criteria that amount to an "outstanding achievement" requirement. 
Sigma Xi's constitution states that procedures related to the nomination, election and promotion of 
members are set forth in its bylaws; however, the bylaws, at section 3, only state that "[t]he Committee 
designated by the Board will have responsibility to set policy regarding nomination, election, and 
initiation procedures" and that "[ c ]hanges in policy will be communicated to chapters for a comment 
period." Neither the constitution nor the bylaws state what the nomination and election policies are 
or who is responsible for electing or promoting members. While the Petitioner refers to his self­
nomination through a Committee on Qualifications on Membership and states that these committee 
members "have shown outstanding achievements themselves," the supporting evidence does not 
describe this self-nomination process, the existence of this committee, or criteria for selection to the 
committee. For these reasons, we agree with the Director's determination that the Petitioner did not 
establish that his membership in Sigma Xi satisfies this criterion. 
On appeal, the Petitioner also emphasizes that he previously provided evidence that he was invited to 
serve as an "Editorial Member" of Bioinfo Publications and as a permanent reviewer of Journal of 
Spatial Hydrology. The Petitioner's invitation from Bioinfo Publications states that the company "is 
interested to associate with well qualified people to increase the reach in the scientific research 
committee." The Petitioner does not provide any additional evidence regarding the selection process 
for membership on the company's editorial board. Nor did he provide evidence that Bioinfo 
Publications, a publishing company, or the Journal of Spatial Hydrology, a professional publication, 
are "associations" in his field that requires outstanding achievements of its members as judged by 
recognized national or international experts. The Petitioner's activities as a peer reviewer and editorial 
board member have been considered under the judging criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) but they 
do not satisfy the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
Evidence of the individual's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major sign[ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
6 
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. Here, the Petitioner indicates that he has made multiple original contributions of major 
significance in the field of environmental science and engineering, specifically with respect to his 
research related to geographic information systems (GIS) and groundwater contamination. 
The first of these contributions is the Petitioner's ublication of a comprehensive model of 
groundwater I I concentrations in The Petitioner provided a 
letter from ~ professor '----.---------'---.who states that the Petitioner's was the first 
comprehensive study to evaluat _._ ______ ...,, its transport into groundwater, and its potential 
I I in that region. He explains that the Petitioner, through his research, "developed a new 
methodology for studying.__ _____ _. on rocks and sediments using I I 
water and liquid scintillation (LSC) method." I I concludes that the Petitioner's research 
"provided insights into an issue that has many people concerned" and "made a significant impact in 
the research community." However, he does not elaborate as to how the Petitioner's study impacted 
the wider research community or why that impact is regarded as majorly significant. 
The Petitioner also provided letters from individuals in the health care field who comment on his 
groundwaten research project.I I a services coordinator at 
I l states that the Petitioner's "techniques and models can be applied.__to-s-im-1-.l-ar_g_e_o_l_l_g1-·c_.l 
settings all over the U.S. to determine I land consequentially! I potential of the region." 
I ~ an assistant professor I I at University of I 1 1 I Medical Center, states 
that the Petitioner's research "significantly impacted the field because of his groundbreaking 
innovation of a low-cost system to study adsorption ofc=]onto different substances" noting that his 
findings are "absolutely critical to protecting public health and furthering the national interest 
generally." I I also states that the groundwater! I maps the Petitioner 
created "constitute a distinguished achievement of enduring impact on the field" because they 
"substantially deepen our understanding of the spatial distribution ofBfrom a specific geologic 
setting perspective." He concludes that the Petitioner's "work on greatly furthers I I 
research, especially with regard to using information systems." 
Finally, I I ofl I states that he intended to use the 
Petitioner's "pioneering work to Troduce correlation maps for I I and the local geology for 
some parts of the United States." lstates that the Petitioner's approach "is expected to assist 
health professionals like me to identify and treat health issues caused by natural hydrogeologic 
conditions." 
The testimonial evidence confirms the ori inalit of the techniques used by the Petitioner to accurately 
,..........---~--.----_.groundwater I land explains the public 
health concerns of such.__ ____ ~ However, the letters do not explain how the Petitioner's 
research techniques have been widely implemented throughout the field or how his research has 
remarkably impacted or influenced the field, such that we can determine that he is recognized for 
making a contribution of major significance. The submitted letters, for example, do not indicate that 
7 
the Petitioner's study has been extensively cited or discussed in the scientific community 5 or that his 
techniques have been widely implemented. The letters sugrst that the Petitioner's techniques could 
prove useful in measuring groundwater! in other geographic areas and under other 
geologic conditions, but they do not indicate that others have used his findings to perform such studies 
or have relied on his findings to benefit public health. 
The Petitioner also claims that he has "produced pioneering work in the subfield of GIS and remote 
sensing research" during his time as a research associate a~ l's GIS Training and Research 
Center, where he worked on several studies funded by NASA grants. I I ofLJ 
states that the Petitioner "develo ed an innovative health model by utilizing I I 
'----------------------------------' techniques" which he 
states are "proven to be benchmark not only in the field of GIS and remote sensing but in various other 
branches of engineering." I I describes the Petitioner's original technique as "invaluable" 
for researchers and land managers as it is "the only technique in all of the research literature capable 
of detecting! I with great accuracy, thereby assisting inl I eradication." 
He also explains that the Petitioner was "the first researcher to demonstrate the bare ground model's 
ability to depict overall! I health index," noting that he was asked to present his original paper 
at the '----------------------~ .__ ____________ _. 
International Conference." While he discusses the novelty and value of the Petitioner's models and 
techniques and indicates that there has been interest in the research,! lhas not explained 
how these techniques have been regarded in the field as particularly impactful or influential, such that 
they are deemed to be of major significance . 
.__ ____ ___.I a professor at th.....__ _______ ---,-________ __,_"""'inec......::a:C""'h""'in~a::.,,..,,sesc:::ta::..::t""'es"--""th~a=-.t 
he cited the Petitioner's 2006 co-authored re ort ' 
'------------r---------,----------------" " in his own study of 
detection thresholds for .__ _____ _. m He further indicates that the 
Petitioner's research has been "successfully applied into developin._._ ___ _.health models forc=J 
.__ ____ _.I systems in USA and similar areas of the world such as China" and states that it has 
helped "not only researchers . . . but also helped land managers, farmers and ranchers effectively 
manage their land for detection and eradication o~ I as well as for improving quality of 
the I I" Although I I generally discusses real world applications of the Petitioner's 
research, the record as a whole, as discussed further below, does not support his claim that the 
Petitioner's research has had a worldwide impact on I I health or that it is relied on by land 
managers and others to the extent that the Petitioner has been recognized for original contributions of 
major significance. 
The Petitioner also rovided a letter from associate professor at the '----------~ 
University of.......,.------,---' who discusses two of th,;;..e_N_A____;;;S_A_re.;;..,;;_'---'-....i;;..;.;u....;;.b_li....;;.c..;..;.at.;_i..;;_o_n.;;_s ....;;.c..;;_o_;-a..;..;u"""t_h..;;_or_;e;_;;d.;...b-'-'--, 
the Petitioner. states that the ublication 
" was valuable because it identified '--------------------------~ the "vegetation indices to be used for mapping th__._ ___ __. as well as the bare ground present in the 
5 We note that the Petitioner's 2010 article'.__ ________________________ ~ 
I [" had been cited five times when the petition was filed in 2018, according to the Google Scholar citation 
history provided. 
8 
study area." He further explains that the Petitioner's original work has been used for the development of 
the "comprehensive automated geospatial model forl lin the state o~ land 
I ~ and indicates that the Petitioner's approach for data collection has informed his own 
model development research. Finally,! lof the University of D who indicates 
that he collaborated with the Petitioner on a 2009 study and states that he has been personally influenced 
by the Petitioner's "innovative ideas regarding identification of bare ground and consequentially 
desertification.__ ________ ___,." I I states that the Petitioner's contributions are "of 
critical importance to the future of our perceptions abou~ !research." 
The submitted letters praise the Petitioner for his technical abilities and explain the originality of the 
techniques he used in the field of GIS and remote sensing, particularly as applied to I I and 
bare ground topologies. However, they do not contain information that demonstrates how the 
Petitioner's findings have been recognized as majorly significant in the field. While some of the letters 
mention that the Petitioner's work has resulted in real world applications, the record does not contain 
sufficient evidence of this impact to support a finding that the Petitioner's work is regarded as 
remarkably impactful. Letters that specifically articulate how a petitioner's contributions are of major 
significance to the field and its impact on subsequent work add value. 6 On the other hand, letters that 
lack specifics do not add value, and are not considered to be probative evidence that may form the 
basis for meeting this criterion. 7 
These letters, as well as other evidence in the record, show that the Petitioner's original work has 
added value to the pool of knowledge in his field and provided novel techniques for combining existing 
methods to improve the accuracy of mapping and measurements for remote sensing applications. The 
evidence, however, is insufficient to confirm that the level of attention received by his research reflects 
widespread commentary and acceptance of his work, or that the field of environmental science or any 
of its sub-fields have regarded his research as authoritative and highly influential. 
In addition, the Petitioner has provided his curriculum vitae with a list of his publications and a citation 
index from Google Scholar documenting how often his publications have been cited. Publications are 
not sufficient under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that they were of "major significance." 
We acknowledge, however, that a petitioner may present evidence that his articles "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 [his] work as authoritative in the field, may be probative 
of the significance of [his] contributions to the field of endeavor. "8 
According to the Petitioner's curriculum vitae, he published eight peer-reviewed journal articles 
between 2009 and 2013, and co-authored 13 "NASA reports" identified as "report articles prepared 
under NASA grants" between 2006 and 2011. Not all of these journal publications and published 
reports appear on his Google Scholar citation index. At the time of filing in 2018, the Petitioner's 
most-cited article had 31 citations, one had 15, another had 10, and the remaining 6 articles or reports 
with citations had between 3 and 8 citations each. 
6 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, supra, at 8-9. 
7 Id. at 9. 
8 Id. 
9 
An appropriate analysis of the Petitioner's citation index would be to compare his citations for individual 
articles to other articles that the field views as highly cited and having been of major significance, as 
well as factoring in other corroborating evidence. The Petitioner has not provided comparative data 
showing that any one of his publications would be considered highly cited in his field. The citation 
numbers provided, without this comparative information for context, do not reflect that his research has 
been extensively discussed by other scientists and researchers. Although his citations show that the 
Petitioner's research has received some attention from the field, the Petitioner did not establish that the 
number of citations to his individual papers demonstrate their "major significance." 
Moreover, the Petitioner contends that he has worked on projects that were fonded by NASA research 
grants. However, receiving fonding to conduct research is not a contribution of major significance in­
and-of-itself. Rather, the Petitioner must establish that receiving grants or similar fonding are 
reflective of his past works' major significance, or the research he conducted with the fonding resulted 
in contributions of major significance in the field. Here, the evidence shows that the Petitioner co­
authored 13 reports for NASA. However, according to the Petitioner's Google Scholar citation index, 
only two of these reports received any citations, and the Petitioner did not demonstrate that his findings 
described in these or other reports resulted in significant contribution of major significance. In 
addition, he did not show how the NASA fonding reflected the importance of his past contributions to 
the overall field or that his involvement as a research associate on the fonded projects came as a result 
of such contributions. Finally, we note that the record does not indicate or document whether the 
Petitioner himself played a key role in obtaining NASA grant fonding while atD 
Further, the Petitioner ar ues that his research has received media covera e. The record contains 
evidence that Integration, " re orted on the 
"completion and validation of a~.....,,...-~health model for parts o _______ ~" The article 
credits the Petitioner with building the model and states that it "makes an important stride toward 
providin~ !managers with geo-spatial decision support tools." The Petitioner farther provided 
evidence that I Is marketing and communications department published an article 
hi hli htin the Petitioner's co-authored paper in which he concluded that ~------~ 
~------------.....----~-'_T_h_e_a_rt__,icle acknowledges the Petitioner as the study's co-
author, but contains quotes from~ _____ __, the study's other author and the director of the 
university's GIS Training and Research Center. The article indicates that 'j ~ study has 
shown that ~------~ can increase soil moisture, leading to more grass and increased 
biomass," which can, in tum, have a meaningful impact on water conservation in thel I 
of rurall ~he Petitioner did not show that media coverage by his own university is indicative of 
his original contributions of major significance in the field. For example, he did not demonstrate that 
his research and findings generated interest from publications outside of his institution. 
For the reasons discussed above, considered both individually and collectively, the Petitioner has not 
shown that he 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 
10 
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 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. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section203(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 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 reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his 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. 
11