dismissed EB-1A Case: Insect And Pest Control Research

MATTER OF E-B-M-K-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 6, 2017 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an insect and pest control 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 Texas Service Center denied the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had satisfied two of the initial evidentiary criteria, of which 
he must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional documentation and a brief stating that he meets at least 
three criteria. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states in pertinent part: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants 
who are aliens described in any ofthe following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -An alien is described in this subparagraph 
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, 
.
Matter of E-B-M-K-
(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 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). Alternately, he or she must provide documentation that meets at 
least three of the ten categories of evidence 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. USC IS, 596 F .3d 1115 (9th Cir. 201 0) 
(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 
pmbably true." Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a researcher at the in Sudan. 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 ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) . In denying the petition, the 
Director found that the Petitioner met the judging criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and the 
scholarly articles criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he meets the original contributions criterion under 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v). 1 We have reviewed all of the evidence in the record, and conclude that it does not 
support a finding that the Petitioner meets the plain language requirements of at least three_ criteria. 
1 While the Petitioner previously claimed eligibility for the membership criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) and the 
leading or critical role criterion under 8 C.F.R . § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) , he does not continue to do so on appeal , nor does the 
record support a finding that he meets them . Accordingly , we will not further address these criteria in our decision . 
2 
.
Matter of E-B-M-K-
Evidence of the alien 's participation , either individually or on a panel. as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an allied field of spec(fication for which class(fication is sought. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The record reflects that the Petitioner has served as an editor for 
and has reviewed manuscripts for professional publications. As such, the 
Director found that the Petitioner met this criterion, and we concur with that determination. 
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 Petitioner contends that his research in the field of insects, insecticide, and non-toxic solutions 
has "changed the face of fruit production and export in his home country of Sudan" and has "been 
adopted in countries with similar climate[s] around the world." In support of his claims, the 
Petitioner provides evidence of the approval of his three patents from the Republic of Sudan. The 
Petitioner indicates that his patent for has increased employment in the agricultural and 
related industries and "[t]he [a]ffect on the Sudanese economy has been tremendous." Moreover, he 
asserts that, based on his research on the use of the it is now used around the 
world against the and that he has also developed non-toxic alternatives including 
radiation, gamma rays, and lime juice to combat this insect. 
Regarding the Petitioner submits screenshots from 
regarding its advertisement for Although his patent from reflects that he 
invented a new formula for the the documentation does not show that 
has utilized his formula. Nor does the record demonstrate that his formula, as opposed to 
previous versions, has influenced others in the field or otherwise represents a contribution of major_ 
significance. See 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). Moreover, he did 
not provide supporting evidence to establish that has increased Sudan's employment and 
affected the economy, as asserted on appeal. 
The Petitioner 's other two patents relate to measuring the susceptibility of insects and others to 
poisons and pesticides and the use of temperatures to fight the With regard to the 
significance of these patents, the Petitioner presents four of his research papers and evidence of his 
authorship of a book. While the evidence shows the originality of his research, it does not reflect­
that his work has been of original significance. For instance, the Petitioner did not provide 
documentation reflecting that others have extensively cited his written work or that his research 
has 
been widely applied in the field, and the record does not corroborate his claim that his research on 
is used around the world to fight the Overall, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that his patents reflect a contribution of major significance. 
The record also contains reference letters from the Petitioner's colleagues, who generally indicate 
that he has authored papers and participated in scientific conferences, but do not elaborate on the 
3 
.
Matter of E-B-M-K-
importance or impact of his patents and related research.2 For instance, 
of the states: "With his long list [of] publications, his 
different teaching courses, his co-advising theses and dissertations, and his patents, [the Petitioner] is 
an outstanding teacher-researcher particularly in the field of pest management." Another reference, 
a 
attests that "[the Petitioner's] distinguished research and technical work is 
evidenced by [the fact that] his patents and research publications appeared and [were] cited in 
several internationally peer-reviewed journals." -- Again, while the selection of the Petitioner's 
articles in professional journals verifies the originality of his work, it does not necessarily reflect that 
his research is considered of major significance. Similarly, the Petitioner offers evidence of his 
participation and poster presentations at various conferences. He did not, however, demonstrate that 
his presentations have been frequently cited by other researchers or have otherwise significantly 
impacted the field. Publications and presentations are not sufficient under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
absent evidence that they were of "major significance." Kazarian v. USC IS, 580 F .3d 1030, 1036 
(9th Cir. 2009), aff'd in part, 596 F.3d 1115. In 2010, the Kazarian court reaffirmed its holding that 
we did not abuse our discretion in our adverse finding relating to this criterion. 596 F.3d at 1122. 
The letters considered above primarily contain attestations of the Petitioner's status in the field 
without providing specific examples of how his contributions rise to a level consistent with major 
significance. 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. Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036, aff'd in part 596 F.3d at 1115. In 2010, 
the Kazarian court reiterated that the USCIS' conclusion that the "letters from physics professors 
attesting to [the petitioner's] contributions in the field" were insufficient was "consistent with the 
relevant regulatory language." 596 F.3d at 1122. 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). 
Without supporting evidence, the Petitioner has not met his burden of showing that he has made 
original contributions ofmajor significance in the field. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the .field, in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media. 8 .CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
As discussed above, the Petitioner authored
- articles that were published in professional journals, 
~~~ . - -
Therefore, the Director found that the Petitioner satisfied this criterion, arid we agree with that 
determination. 
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 
2 While we discuss only a sampling of these letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 
Matter of E-B-M-K-
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 level of expertise required for the classification sought. For the 
foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that he qualifies for classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. 
i 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of E-B-M-K-, ID# 379168 (AAO June 6, 2017) 
5