dismissed EB-1A Case: Immunology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 6619013 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : APR. 29, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner , a senior fellow , 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 he 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)(l) 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 senior fellow at the University of~--~----~ 
I I 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). 
In denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner fulfilled two of the initial 
evidentiary criteria, judging at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and scholarly articles at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). The record reflects that the Petitioner reviewed papers 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 asserts that he 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 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 contends that the Director "failed to take into account the totality of the evidence and 
... noted the importance of [his] work." Specifically, he references two of his scholarly articles, four 
recommendation letters, and an article that cited to his work. 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. 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 it relates to his scholarly articles published in the European Journal of Immunology and Mucosa! 
Immunology, the Petitioner argues that his "revolutionary scientific findings represent a significant 
contribution to immunology because for the first time in human history,! I 
~--~!inducing effective immunity against [Mycoacterium] tuberculosis was meticulously proven 
1 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 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 
and documented." While the publication of his articles shows the originality of his research, it does 
not necessarily demonstrate that his findings have been of major significance in the field. Moreover, 
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. 
In addition, the record reflects that the Petitioner submitted citatory evidence from Google Scholar 
reflecting that his two articles received 19 and 12 citations, respectively. 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 not only identify his 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 his citations for these published articles are commensurate with contributions 
of major significance. 2 Here, the Petitioner did not articulate the significance or relevance of the 
citations to his articles. For example, he did not demonstrate that these citations are unusually high in 
his field or how they compare to other articles that the field views as having been majorly significant. 3 
Although his citations indicate his research has received some attention from the field, the Petitioner 
did not demonstrate that his citation numbers to these articles represent majorly significant 
contributions in the field. 4 
Further, as indicated by the Petitioner, he submitted an article authored by.__ _____ ___.and 
I I who cited to his European Journal of Immunology article. Although the authors 
credit the Petitioner's article for "show[ing] that mice lacking the I O lin myeloid cells 
have augmented M. tuberculosis growth and increased inflammation in the lungs," the Petitioner did 
not establish how a single article that cites to his work demonstrates that his research rises to a level 
of major significance consistent with this regulatory criterion. While the authors build upon the 
Petitioner's work in their own research, he did not show the significance of his research in the overall 
field beyond the authors who cited to his work in a single article. 5 
Likewise, although not argued on appeal, the record contains an article authored by I 
.......... -,.....,....------,,..,.....,..~~n~ I who cited to his Mucosal Immunology article . ._A_g_a_i_n_, -th_e_. 
Petitioner did not demonstrate the significance of this sample article that cited to his work. Moreover, 
the article does not distinguish or highlight the Petitioner's written work from the other 169 cited 
papers. In the case here, the Petitioner did not establish, through citations, that his Mucosal 
Immunology article is viewed by the greater field as a contribution of major significance. 
2 The Petitioner also did not demonstrate that any of his other scholarly articles resulted in original contributions of major 
significance in the field. 
3 The record also reflects that the Petitioner submitted documentation from Google Scholar regarding the citation of articles 
from I I and .__ ______ ___, whose individual aiticles garnered citations in the hundreds and 
thousands. 
4 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9 (providing an example that peer-reviewed articles in 
scholarly journals that have provoked widespread commentary or received notice from others working in the field, or 
entries (paiticularly 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). 
5 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9; see also Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 (upholding 
a finding that a ballroom dancer had not met this criterion because she did not conoborate her impact in the field as a 
whole). 
3 
Finally, in regards to the Petitioner's four recommendation letters, they recount his research and 
findings and indicate their publications in journals. Although they reflect the novelty of his work, they 
do not sufficiently articulate how his research and findings have impacted the field in a significant 
manner. For instance,! I stated that "[t]he genetic study found a significant 
association ofl lwith pulmonary TB in the population studied .... 
[the Petitioner] published the results of this study in Disease Markers," the Petitioner "showed that a 
soluble factor, .__ _______________ _,, is responsible for this inhibition of M. 
tuberculosis growth in human macrophages and in mice .... [the Petitioner] published the results of 
these studies in the highly prestigious scientific journal PLOS Pathogens," and "[the Petitioner] found 
th8tl I by myeloid cells contributes to the protective immune response against M. 
tuberculosis .... [the Petitioner] first authored work, which in 2016 was published in the European 
Journal oflmmunology, a prestigious journal in the field oflmmunology." Here, I I did not 
further elaborate and explain how such findings significantly impacted or influenced the field rather 
than referencing the publication of the Petitioner's research in journals. Again, publication 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. 
Furthermore, the letters speculate on the possibility of having an impact at some point in the future, 
such as "[t]his finding can lead to strategies in development of new.__ ________ __, strains 
that can stimulate memory [Natural Killer] cells more effectively in humans," "[t]his study can pave 
way to facilitate development of more effective vaccines and dru therapy," and "the potential his 
findings will have on alleviating health conditions" Moreover, the Petitioner's 
"novel research in this area suggests tha.__ _____ __, 1s essentia or the optimal control ofM.tb 
infection," "[t]his information will facilitate development of improved vaccines and 
immunotherapeutic strategies to prevent and treat TB, respectively," and"[ u ]tilizing a scientist of [the 
Petitioner's] outstanding skill level is a boon for the national interest of the United States due to his 
ability to meticulously devise new approaches that are promising steps toward improving our 
understanding of immunology" I ~- In addition, "[t]he delineation of the 
mechanisms by which I !optimizes immune responses against M.tb may facilitate the 
development of vaccines against this organism and other intracellular pathogens," and his "research 
will eventually find important beneficial clinical application" .__ ______ __. While the 
Petitioner's research may show promise, he did not establish how his work already qualifies as a 
contribution of major significance in the field, rather than prospective, potential impacts. Here, the 
significant nature of his work has yet to be determined. 
As discussed above, 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. Letters that 
specifically articulate how a petitioner's contributions are of major significance in the field and its 
impact on subsequent work add value. 6 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 
6 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9. 
4 
for meeting this criterion. 7 Moreover, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory statements. 1756, 
Inc. v. The US. 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 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 
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 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 he 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). 
Although the Petitioner has reviewed manuscripts, conducted research, and authored scholarly articles, 
the record does not contain sufficient evidence establishing that he is among the upper echelon in his 
field. 
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. 
7 Id. at 9. See also Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036, aff'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). 
5