dismissed EB-1A Case: Hydrology And Ecology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF P-0-A-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. 13,2017 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a multidisciplinary researcher focused on hydrology and ecology. seeks classification 
as an individual of extraordinary ability in the sciences. 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 record did not 
establish, as required, that the Petitioner satisfied at least three of the regulatory criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner resubmits documents already part of the record and asserts that he 
presented the requisite initial evidence, which the Director should have considered in the aggregate. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act describes qualified immigrants for this classification as follows: 
(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 m 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 
.
Matter of P-0-A-
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. Alternatively, 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). 
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. 201 0). 1 
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 true." Matter o( 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is an experienced scientist who has conducted research in the areas of microbial 
ecology and environmental science. He received his undergraduate degree in zoology at 
in Nigeria; his master's degree in environmental sciences at the 
in 2013, his Ph.D. degree in biology from the 
degree, he served as adjunct faculty teaching biology 
at 
in the Netherlands; and, 
After receiving his Ph.D. 
in Ohio. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner had satisfied the judging and the authorship of scholarly 
articles criteria. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), (vi). Based on his participation as a peer-reviewer and 
the articles in the record, the record supports those findings. At issue is whether he meets a third 
criterion. For the reasons discussed below, we find that he has not. 
A. Prior 0-1 Nonimmigrant Visa 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has approved at least one 0-1 nonimmigrant 
visa petition filed on behalf of the Petitioner. This prior approval, however, does not preclude 
USCIS from denying an immigrant visa petition based on a different, if similarly phrased, 
standard. There are instances when Form 1-140 immigrant petitions are denied after USCIS 
approved 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 Dep 't of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Brothers 
1 This case discusses 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); Rijalv. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011). 
2 
.
Matter of P-0-A-
Co. Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989). Furthermore, our authority over the service 
centers is comparable to the relationship between a court of appeals and a district court. Even if a 
service center director had approved the nonimmigrant petitions on behalf of the Beneficiary, we 
would not be bound to follow the contradictory decision of a service center. Louisiana 
Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 2000 WL 282785 (E.D. La.), qfj"'d, 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001 ). 
cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 51 (200 1 ). 
B. Criteria 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the.field of endeavor. 8 C.P.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The Petitioner relies on a award at the limited to graduate students, 
several travel grants, a research grant as one of the top three master of science students at 
a fellowship that funded his studies in the Netherlands, and a research grant for a project in Nigeria 
where he was not the principal investigator. The Director concluded that the Petitioner had not 
documented that any of the above were nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for 
excellence as required. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the research grant in 2007 funded work 
that produced important results and represented a large amount of money at the time. He then lists his 
other awards and maintains that he has met his burden of demonstrating that they are nationally or 
internationally recognized. The 2007 research grant names a professor and a principal investigator 
ahead of the Petitioner, an undergraduate zoology student at the time, and another co-researcher. The 
record contains no evidence that the grant was a prize or award issued to the Petitioner in recognition of 
his excellence in the field of hydrology. Rather, it funded future research, which had yet to produce any 
results when the university distributed the grant. 
The Petitioner has not offered any evidence to support his position that the remaining awards are 
nationally or internationally recognized beyond the entities that issued them. As the Director noted, 
they are all limited to novices in the field. For example, the 
advised that their travel grants assist researchers in their educational pursuits. The 
record contains no published material in the trade or general media reporting the award selections or 
other similar evidence of their recognition in the field. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not met his 
burden by corroborating that his awards are nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for 
excellence. 
Documentation of the alien'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.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The Petitioner documented his membership in and the 
at the student level. requires "noteworthy 
achievements." It interprets that phrase, however, as including authorship oftwo papers, one of which 
can be substituted with an earned doctoral degree. requires certain academic achievements; 
3 
.
Matter C?f P-0-A-
members must have completed a certain number of credits, hold a specified grade point average, and 
demonstrate a record of leadership and service. Student members of must be fully matriculated, 
studying microbiology, and interested in the objectives of the society. On appeal, the Petitioner limits 
his discussion to and repeating their membership requirements. He has not established 
that earning a Ph.D. degree and authoring one paper equates to an outstanding achievement in a 
research occupation. Nor has he shown that grade point average and leadership responsibilities in 
graduate school are outstanding achievements in the field. Finally, the record lacks evidence that 
membership in either organization is judged by national or international experts. Thus, the Petitioner 
has not satisfied this criterion. 
Published materials about the alien in prqfessional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in thefieldfor which class(fication is sought. Such evidence shall 
include the title. date .. and author of the material. and any necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
During the proceeding before the Director, the Petitioner presented an interview with him that appeared 
in the Nigerian The Director concluded that the Petitioner had not supported the 
assertion that the paper constitutes major media. On appeal, he maintains that it has a circulation of 
100,000 but offers no corroboration such as distribution and circulation statistics from a reliable source. 
Regardless, the article appeared in that publication in 2016, four months atter the Petitioner tiled 
the petition. He must establish that all eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have been 
satisfied from the time ofthe filing and continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). The 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that he met this criterion as ofthe date of filing. 
Evidence of the alien 's original scient(fic, scholarly, artistic. athletic. or business-related 
contributions of major sign(ficance in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The Petitioner relies on several letters to meet this criterion. Five of the letters are from the 
faculty, two are from individuals who explain that they knew the Petitioner at 
and one is from a coauthor during his time at The record also 
contains a letter from a senior researcher who studies medicinal plants at the 
in South Africa. The 
Petitioner affirms that knows him "through his reputation." While confinns that 
he has never collaborated with the Petitioner, according to his curriculum vitae, he attended an 
undergraduate program at with the Petitioner from 1995 through 1999. 
We have read and considered all of these letters and discuss a representative sample below. 
a professor of biology at the discusses the Petitioner's 
work in his laboratory there. Specifically, he showed that "terrestrial 
plays an important role in stream metabolism" and "elucidated the microbial community responsible for 
the initial utilization of terrestrial in streams." atli1ms that the Petitioner presented 
these results, which was pending publication. He does not explain how it has already impacted the field 
beyond adding to the general pool of knowledge. another professor at the 
4 
.
Matter of P-0-A-
maintains that this work "has important implications:· but also does not specify 
how it has already influenced the field. 
next describes the Petitioner's research confirming the presence of unusual fatty acids 
within the membranes of lipid chytrid fungi published in While contends that this 
result "underpins the use of these fatty acids as biomarkers tor chytrid fungi in environmental studies,'· 
the record lacks letters from independent researchers applying, this data in their own effmts or evidence 
of citations. asserts that no one· else has produced these results. While we do not contest 
that his research is original, there must be some demonstrable level of impact in the field to constitute a 
contribution of major significance. an associate professor of neuroscience at 
the and former fellow classmate in Nigeria, posits that this study offers 
"the potential of phospholipid fatty acid biomarkers for use in environmental studies." 
an expert in a different field, does not suggest he is pursuing such work. 
Finally, states that he applied the Petitioner's experimental design for stream networks 
within his current endeavor. Thus, the Petitioner' s former supervisor and mentor has built upon their 
past collaboration. That activity, however, does not demonstrate a level of impact in the field consistent 
with a contribution of major significance. 
addresses the Petitioner's work as a research editor and biostatistician tor 
projects. He does not suggest that these etlorts have 
impacted the field and it falls outside the Petitioner's current ecological tocus. concludes 
his letter with general praise of the Petitioner's ecological studies. 
an associate professor at describes their collaboration while the 
Petitioner was at and associated with the in 
Switzerland. While affirms that their coauthored article has garnered over 35 citations, he 
does not identify specific contributions made by the Petitioner within that work or offer examples of 
how it is being implemented in the field. notes that he himself is a well-cited author with over 
1,000 citations. Regardless, the Petitioner did not provide corroborating evidence to demonstrate that 
his citation record indicates his work has been of major significance to the field. 
Finally, praises the Petitioner but does not affirm any influence on his own pursuits. As 
noted above, his focus is medicinal plants and he does not clarify his expertise to evaluate the 
Petitioner's area of research. reiterates that the Petitioner's results with leaf litter have 
important implications, but the issue is whether the Petitioner has already impacted the field. 
does 
name three articles that either utilized the Petitioner's experimental design of spatial network 
analysis or built upon his study of mite species on the floor of a rainforest. The Petitioner, however, did 
not offer pages from these articles showing the extent of their reliance on this work or letters from the 
authors of those articles. As noted above, the record contains no corroboration regarding the number of 
citations overalL For all of the reasons discussed above, while the letters confinn that the Petitioner's 
immediate circle of colleagues appreciate his skills and results, the record when considered as a whole 
.
Matter of P-0-A-
does not demonstrate a level of impact in the field consistent with a contribution of major significance. 
He therefore has not met this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role fhr organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3 )(viii). 
The Petitioner maintains that he meets this criterion as a student magazine editorial coordinator for 
He discusses the important services the institution provides and contends that he 
"served a critical role in publicizing the institute's activities and furthering its educational mission." 
The Petitioner submits several pages from the publication ' 
These pages, however, do not list an editor or name the Petitioner. Moreover, we will not presume a 
qualifying role from the title alone. The record does not contain a letter from anyone at 
confirming his position there and describing his duties. Accordingly, he has not satisfied this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner is not eligible because he has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a 
one-time achievement or documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria listed at 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Thus, we need not fully address the totality of the materials in a final merits 
determination. 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 level of expertise required for the classification sought. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter o,{ P-0-A-, ID# 639713 (AAO Nov. 13, 2017)