dismissed EB-1A Case: Infectious Diseases

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF M-A-R-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAR. 27, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an infectious disease researcher, 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 Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that although the Petitioner satisfied three of the initial evidentiary criteria, as 
required, he did not show sustained national or international acclaim and demonstrate that he is among 
the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional documentation and a brief, arguing that he has sustained 
the required acclaim and has risen to the very top of his field. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(A) 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. 
.
Matter ofM-A-R-
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 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 not 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). 
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). 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 ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
11. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner indicated that he works as a researcher and clinician at the · 
in , Ohio. 1 As the Petitioner has not 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 Director found that the Petitioner met the following three criteria: awards under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i), 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 reviewed two papers for journals and 
published 20 scholarly articles in professional publications. Accordingly, we agree with the Director 
that the Petitioner fulfilled the judging and scholarly articles criteria. However, we do not concur with 
the Director's determination that the Petitioner satisfied the awards criterion discussed below. 
Documentation of the alien '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 claimed to meet this criterion based on his receipt of the following: (1) a National 
Youth Award in 2008 from the ___________ (2) a Scholarship from 
1 While the Petitioner claimed in his initial cover letter that he "has worked as [a] researcher and clinician at the 
since 2016, he did not provide evidence to support his assertion, nor did he document his 
employment history. In addition, the Petitioner 's resume does not indicate any employment record. 
2 
.
Matter ofM-A-R-
in 2009; and (3) an unnamed presentation award from the 
in 2018. In order to satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate 
whether he has received lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence 
in the field of endeavor. 2 
As it relates to the National Youth Award, the Petitioner offered screenshots from •----­
reflecting that the award "[r]ecognize[s] the achievements of the young people in their lives and to 
volunteers working for the welfare and development of the youth." While the screenshots describe 
the purpose of the award, they do not establish that it is nationally or internationally recognized for 
excellence in his field of endeavor, infectious diseases. Moreover, the distribution of prizes and 
awards by governmental entities do not necessarily show that his field recognizes them for excellence. 
Here, the Petitioner did not demonstrate the infectious disease field's view of the National Youth 
Award. 
Regarding his Scholarship, the Petitioner submitted "The Scholarships Fact Sheet" 
indicating that they "are postgraduate awards that provide transformative opportunities for exceptional 
young leaders to study at the Although Scholarships are prestigious 
in academia, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the scholarship is a recognized prize or award for 
excellence in his field of endeavor, infectious diseases. Moreover, academic study is not a field of 
endeavor, but training for one; academic awards and honors received while preparing for a vocation 
do not constitute nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field 
of endeavor. 
Relating to presentation award, he presented a letter from : , president of 
who confirmed the Petitioner's receipt of the award. However, the Petitioner did not offer 
evidence demonstrating that the award is nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the 
field. 
We note that the Petitioner also claims on appeal that he received "an award for the 14th Annual 
in 2012" and "secured a travel award in 2013 
to attend and present his work at the international meeting in 2013 in 
Kenya." The Petitioner, however, did not support his assertions with corroborating evidence. In 
addition, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the awards are nationally or internationally recognized 
for excellence in the field. 
Because the Petitioner did not establish that his awards satisfy the eligibility requirements, we 
withdraw the findings of the Director for this criterion. 
2 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJJ -14 6 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/po licymanual/HTML/PolicyManua l.html. 
3 
.
Matter ofM-A-R-
Evidence of the alien 's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The record reflects that the Petitioner claimed eligibility for this criterion based on the citation of his 
work and recommendation letters. 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. 
Relating to his citations, the Petitioner provides updated evidence from Google Scholar reflecting that 
he garnered at total of 297 citations from 20 journal articles with his highest three cited papers 
(International Journal of Infectious Diseases, Retrovirology, and BMC Infectious Diseases) receiving 
72, 45, and 39 citations, respectively. Generally, citations can serve as an indication that the field has 
taken an interest in a petitioner's work. However, the Petitioner did not articulate the significance or 
relevance of his citations. Further, although his citations are indicative that his research has received 
some attention from the field, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that his citation numbers to his 
individual articles represent majorly significant contributions to the overall field. 3 Moreover, the 
Petitioner has not adequately 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. 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. 
Regarding the recommendation letters, the authors summarize the Petitioner's professional 
accomplishments, such as completing training and education, presenting at conferences, reviewing 
journal papers, and publishing articles. However, the letters do not explain how the Petitioner's 
achievements have been considered by the field to be of major significance. Instead, the letters 
comment on the Petitioner's "unique" skills. For instance, opined that the 
Petitioner's "expertise is unique" and his "skill set is highly unique and is matched by few others in 
the world." 4 Moreover, indicated that the Petitioner "has a truly unique skill set 
and accomplishment record" and is "a truly rare entity in the field ofinfectious diseases and medicine." 
Having a diverse or unique skill set is not a contribution of major significance in-and-of-itself Rather, 
the Petitioner must demonstrate that he has used his "unique" skills to impact the field in a significant 
way. Moreover, the letters recollect the Petitioner's research without explaining how it has been of 
major significance to the field. For example, indicated that the Petitioner 
conducted research in Pakistan relating to the human immunodeficiency virus and the human 
3 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1 , supra, at 8-9 (providing an example that peer-reviewed articles in 
scholarly journa ls that 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); 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 corroborate her impact 
in the field as a whole). 
4 Although we discuss a sampling of letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 
Matter ofM-A-R-
papilloma virus but did not elaborate on the impact or influence of the findings beyond publishing in 
journals and presenting at conferences. 
Here, the letters do not contain detailed information showing the substantial influence his contributions 
have had on the overall field. Letters that specifically articulate how a petitioner's contributions are 
of major significance to the field and its impact on subsequent work add value. 5 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 for meeting this criterion. 6 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). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. In visa petition proceedings, the petitioner bears the burden to establish 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of 
Skirball Cultural Ctr., 25 I&N Dec. 799, 806 (AAO 2012). Here, that burden has not been met. 
5 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9. 
6 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 
Matter ofM-A-R-
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofM-A-R-, ID# 2524441 (AAO Mar. 27, 20109)