dismissed EB-1A Case: Life And Environmental Science

MATTER OF A-A-A-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN. 9, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a postdoctoral scholar and environmental sustainability fellow, 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 the Petitioner had satisfied only one of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, of 
which he must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional documentation and a brief, arguing that he meets at least 
three of the ten criteria. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(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 m the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
.
Matter of A-A-A-
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). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner to submit comparable 
material if he or she is able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not 
readily apply to the individual's occupation. 
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. 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 of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner was working as a visiting fellow and senior research scholar at 
in the field of life and 
environmental science. 1 He states that his research is aimed at studying the "social aspects of 
science & technology in sustainable agriculture, renewable energy, climate change & health 
innovation in developing countries." Because he 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). 
1 The Petitioner has provided two CVs, indicating he was previously a research fellow at 
School of Government from 2014 until 2015, when he earned his master's degree in public policy, and a graduate 
student and research assistant at the from 2004 until 2007, when he earned his Ph.D. in 
biology. The record does not contain a copy of the Petitioner's degree certificates, but the CVs indicate, respectively, 
that his doctoral degree is in "Biological Sciences" and "Applied Toxicology." 
2 
.
Matter of A-A-A-
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
The Director found that the Petitioner met only one of the initial evidentiary criteria, judging under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). The Petitioner's documentary evidence indicates that he has peer 
reviewed manuscripts for several journals. 2 Accordingly, we agree with the Director that the 
Petitioner fulfilled the judging criterion. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he meets six additional criteria, discussed below: the awards 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), the membership in associations criterion under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii), the published material criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), the original 
contributions criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), the scholarly articles criterion under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi), and the leading or critical role criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). He 
further argues that he has demonstrated his sustained national or international acclaim and that he is 
among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. We have reviewed all of the 
evidence in the record and conclude that it does not support a finding that the Petitioner satisfies the 
requirements of at least three 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.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The Petitioner contends that he meets this criterion, based upon his receipt of a doctoral student 
award by the a postdoctoral fellowship, and several other student 
awards and research grants during the course of his academic career. Initially, the Petitioner 
submitted a certificate reflecting that awarded him a student prize for the best poster 
presentation at its annual conference in 2008. His letter indicated that he presented his final doctoral 
research at the conference, attended by "many international students including from Europe and 
America." Within his response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), he offered a letter from 
president who explains that the prize is "judged by a panel of senior, eminent 
toxicologists from the for the "originality and quality of the work" and "clarity of the 
presentation." He states that "[a]ny student who is a member of the and presenting a poster at 
the annual congress" is eligible for consideration," that "draws its membership mainly from the 
UK," and that any prize awarded by would be "well regarded globally.'' 
2 For example, the Petitioner has reviewed manuscripts for Food Policy and Biologica l Conservation. 
3 
.
Matter of A-A-A-
Although the Petitioner demonstrated his receipt of the aforementioned prize from he did not 
establish that it meets the requirements of this criterion. The Petitioner has not demonstrated that the 
award, which the record indicates is limited to students rather than open to established professionals, 
is nationally or internationally recognized as an award or prize for excellence in the field.3 
Similarly, the Petitioner did not establish that his postdoctoral fellowship with the 
grant, or other 
competitive research grants and student awards are tantamount to nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field, consistent with this regulatory criterion. On 
appeal, the Petitioner provides a letter from program manager for who 
confirms that between 2010 and 2012 he was a postdoctoral fellow, and describes the 
program as "highly competitive" and providing "promising, highly qualified young researchers" the 
opportunity to conduct advanced research at Japanese universities and other research institutions. 
The Petitioner also asserts that he received a 
and research funding from the The 
record does not contain corroborating documentation of these items of funding. Regardless, only 
other students - not recognized experts in the field - compete for such funding. The Petitioner has not 
shown that receiving the noted funding for his research and academic training constitutes receipt of a 
nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he fulfills this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien ·s membership in associations in the field for which 
classification 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). 
On appeal for the first time, the Petitioner contends that he satisfies this criterion based on his 
"membership as an advisory board member" with the 
in February 2013, and the 
since October 2017.4 
The Petitioner's CV indicates that he was one of ten experts invited by "to establish [the] 
biotechnology centre of excellence in Africa," also referred to in the record as the 
at the He provides a notice for the 2013 
inaugural meeting of the ___ International Scientific Advisory Board, and a 2014 job posting 
' 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 AD 11-14 6 (Dec. 22, 20 I 0), 
https://www.uscis.gov/politymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html. 
4 Although he also asserts that he is "a member of the most recognized and reputable organization in the world, the 
United Nations," we take notice of the fact that both the United Nations and confer membership on states, not 
persons. 
4 
.
.
Matter of A-A-A-
for executive director of However, the Petitioner has not documented his membership in 
or its International Scientific Advisory Board. Regardless, the job posting for the 
executive director lists certain educational and professional requirements, such as a doctoral 
degree, and five years of postdoctoral experience in biotechnology. Such requirements are not 
"outstanding achievements" in the field. 
Regarding the Petitioner's CV indicates that since October 2017 he has been an advisor with 
"The Expert Advisory Group-Support of advisory and Capacity-building Services to 
The record does not contain information pertaining to the 
membership requirements of the claimed advisory group, or evidence establishing his 
membership in the group at the time of filing the petition on May 10, 2017.5 Accordingly, the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate that he fulfills this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in the field.for which class(fication is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date. and author qf the material, and any necessary 
translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The Petitioner contends that he is "continually and currently being relied upon" and "quoted as an 
expert" in published materials in the field. He submitted a 2013 publicity release in SciDev.Net 
titled " pertaining to his study of GMO 
regulation in Africa that would soon be published in Food Policy. The publicity release summarizes 
some of the findings of that study and includes quotes from the Petitioner. 6 On appeal, he offers a 
letter from Ben Deighton, managing editor of SciDev.Net, stating that the website published his 
article I in 2011 and quoted him as an expert in two 
other news items published in 2013. Mr. Deighton describes SciDev.Net as "the world's leading 
online source of news about science, technology and innovation for development," reaching "100 
million people" annually. 
The aforementioned articles are not about the Petitioner, therefore, they do not meet this regulatory 
criterion. See, e.g., Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-00820 at *l, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 2008) 
(upholding a finding that articles about a show are not about the actor). Further, the record does not 
contain probative evidence showing that the submitted article appeared in major media. Self­
promotional material is not sufficient to demonstrate a publication's status as major media. See 
5 The Petitioner must establish that all eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have been satisfied from the 
time of the filing and continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § l 03.2(b)( l ). 
6 The Petitioner also offered an article published in 20 17 in Nature Climate Change, briefly describing his study of 
climate change adaptation in Africa in Ecological Economics. However, this article was published after the date the 
petition was filed on May I 0, 2017. As discussed previously, the Petitioner must establish that all eligibility 
requirements for the immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time of the filing and continuing through 
adjudication. 
.
Matter of A-A-A-
Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06-5105 SJO (FMOX), 2007 WL 9229758, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Jul. 6, 2007), 
ajf'd, 317 F. App'x 680, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (concluding that this office did not have to rely on a 
petitioner's unsubstantiated assertions). The Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) at Chapter 
22.2(i)(l)(A) discusses that to demonstrate a publication qualifies as a professional or major trade 
publication, or other major media, a petitioner should "identify the [publication's] circulation (on­
line or in print) and intended audience of the publication, as well as the title, date and author of the 
material." 7 The Petitioner did not submit material establishing the circulation statistics for the 
website SciDev.Net website, nor did he provide other circulation data to compare with those of this 
publication. Without additional corroboration, the Petitioner has not illustrated that the article was 
published in major media.8 Accordingly, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he fulfills this 
criterion. 
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). 
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. The Petitioner contends that he "has completed original research and is a 
renowned expert within his field" who "has the support of other well-known and respected 
professionals who have commented on his work and abilities." Although he provided evidence 
reflecting the originality of his work through co-authored publications reporting his findings, he has 
not demonstrated that the overall field views his research and work as being majorly significant. 
The Petitioner argues that he "has more than 375 citations to his work," and that the top-cited article, 
published in Energy Policy in 2013, "has been cited 66 times alone." He also emphasizes that 
Energy Policy "is a high-impact journal," and that Food Policy, in which he was published in 2013, 
"is the top journal worldwide by simple impact factor in the field of agricultural economics."9 The 
comparative ranking of a paper's citation rate does not automatically establish it as a majorly 
significant contribution to the field. Rather, the appropriate analysis is to determine whether a 
petitioner has shown that his individual articles, factoring in citations and other corroborating 
evidence, have been considered important at a level consistent with original contributions of major 
significance in the field. Publications and presentations are not sufficient under 8 C.F.R. 
7 Available at https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/ocomm/ilink/0-0-0-6423.html#0-0-0-417, accessed on January 7, 2019. 
8 The Petitioner has not claimed, or provided evidence. showing that the article appeared in professional or major trade publ ications. 
9 The Petitioner submitted evidence reflecting that he published approximately seventeen journal articles and three book 
chapters. In addition, he provided several materials published after the date the petition was tiled on May I 0, 2017, 
including articles published in the journals Nature Biotechnology, Ecological E conomics, World Development, and the 
cover page of a book he c o-edited, titled ' -~- --~- Further, he 
submitted evidence pertaining to a book he is co-editing which has not yet been published, tentatively titled 
As mentioned previously, the Petitioner must 
demonstrate his eligibility at the time of filing. Accordingly, we will not consider these additional items. 
.
Matter of A-A-A-
§ 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. Furthermore, a publication that 
bears a high ranking or impact factor is reflective of the publication's overall citation rate. It does 
not, however, demonstrate the influence of any particular author within the field, how an author's 
research impacted the field, or establish a contribution of major significance in the field. 
Although his citations show that his 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." For instance, he has not submitted samples of other articles that cited to his 
work, to distinguish his written work from the other articles cited, or other evidence showing the 
significance of his research to the overall field beyond the authors who cited to his work. 10 Here, the 
Petitioner has not shown that his citations rise to a level of "major significance" consistent with this 
regulatory criterion. 
In addition, the Petitioner states that he "has been a contributor and a relied upon member of various 
United Nations groups, projects, and initiatives." The record indicates that he contributed the 
findings of his postdoctoral research with the == to the 2015 and 2016 editions of the 
which invited scientists and 
researchers "to submit science briefs that highlight research findings or solutions relating to 
sustainable development." The evidence shows that the Petitioner's co-authored article, 
was of 1 of 187 science policy briefs 
published in the 2015 edition and 1 of 97 briefs published in the 2016 edition. Although those 
reports contain his published article, he did not establish that inclusion in the publications 
demonstrates that his research paper is considered to be of major significance to the field. The 
Petitioner did not provide evidence, for example, showing that the ___ article led to 
widespread coverage of and interest in his work and research. 
Further, while the Petitioner notes that the record contains recommendation letters praising him for 
his original contributions, the letters do not demonstrate their major significance to the field. The 
letters briefly recount his research and findings, indicate their publication in at least one high-impact 
journal, and note their presentation at international conferences and conventions. Although they 
detail the novelty of the Petitioner's research, the authors do not contend that its impact on the field 
rises to the level required by this criterion, or otherwise provide specific examples of contributions 
that are indicative of major significance. For instance, his research colleagues and co-authors 
, at and formerly at described his 
work examining the capacity and financing for climate change adaptation and mitigation in Africa, 
but they did not explain the significance of his research to the field or how it has greatly influenced 
other researchers or scientists . Letters that repeat the regulatory language but do not explain how an 
10 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 corroborate her impact in the 
field as a whole). 
.
Matter of A-A-A-
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, affd in part 596 F.3d at 
1115. 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. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
The record contains evidence that the Petitioner has published scholarly articles in the Journal of 
Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, Journal of Environmental Management, Journal of 
Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, African Journal of Biotechnology, and in the journals Food 
Policy, Energy Policy, Technology in Society, Biodiversity and Conservation, and Environmental 
Science & Policy. We find that the Petitioner meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role .fcJr organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
On appeal for the first time, the Petitioner claims that he satisfies this criterion based on his "advisory 
roles" with in February 2013, and the since October 2017, as well as his participation 
in international conferences, multi-year research studies, and book projects. The scope of this 
evidentiary criterion focuses on the relative importance of the Petitioner's role for distinguished 
organizations. In general, a leading role is evidenced from the role itself, and a critical role is one in 
which the petitioner contributed in a way that that is of significant importance to the outcome of the 
organization or establishment's activities. 11 The Petitioner has not documented his role with 
International Scientific Advisory Board, or provided an organizational chart or other evidence 
to distinguish his role from that of other advisors, and demonstrate that he performed in a leading or 
critical role for 
Regarding the , the Petitioner's CV indicates that since October 2017 he has been an advisor with 
'The Expert A ..... ,.-.,,v,J Group-Support of advisory and Capacity-building Services to 
The Petitioner has not provided evidence of his role with 
, and his CV indicates he performed in this role after the date the petition was filed on 
May 10, 2017. As we stated previously, the Petitioner must demonstrate his eligibility at the time of 
filing , therefore , we will not consider this evidence in determining whether he satisfies this criterion. 
Finally , with regard to the additional roles that the Petitioner references , the plain language of the 
regulation requires that the leading or critical role be "for organizations or establishments. " The 
Petitioner did not identify organizations or establishments for which he played a critical role through 
his conferences , research studies , and book projects . Accordingly , the Petitioner did not establish 
that he satisfies this criterion . 
11 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at I 0. 
8 
Matter of A-A-A-
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 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 foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that he qualifies for classification as an 
individual of extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter qf A-A-A-, ID# 1883186 (AAO Jan. 9, 2019) 
9