dismissed EB-1A Case: Material Chemistry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
·Services 
MATTER OF .J-Y-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR.17,20!8 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALlEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a doctoral candidate and researcher in the field of material chemistry, 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 petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Petitioner met at least three of the ten initial evidence requirements. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence, asserting that he meets the necessary criteria 
and qual i lies for the classification. · 
.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 Ill the area of 
extraor~inary 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 
McJ/Ier of.!- Y-
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth two options for satisfying this classilication'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 tield of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 20 I 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." Maller of" 
Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a doctoral candidate and researcher in the field of material chemistry. Because he 
has not indicated or established that he has received a major, internationally recognized award, to 
meet the initial evidence requirements, 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 two criteria: partiCipation as a 
judging under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and authorship of scholarly articles under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). On appeal, he maintains that he also meets the original contributions criteria 
under 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3)(i) and (v). We have reviewed all of the evidence in the record, and 
concur with the Director that the Petitioner has met the judging and scholarly articles criteria. 
However, we conclude that the record does not support a finding that the Petitioner satisfies at least 
three criteria. 2 
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): R{icd v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.O. Wash. 2011). 
2 We will discuss those criteria the Petitioner has raised and for which the record contains relevant evidence. 
2 
.
Mcll/er r!f.l- Y-
Evidence <?f'the a/{en 's participat ion. either individually or on a panel . as a judge of 
!he work (~l others in the same or an allied field f?[ spec!fication .fi>r which 
class(/ication is sought. 8 C. F.R. § 204 .5(h)(3) (iv). 
The Petitioner submi ts evid ence that he has reviewed manus cripts submitt ed to r publicat ion in 
evidence meet s the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h) (3)( iv). 
This 
Evidenc e (?l the alien ·s original scient(fic. scholar ly. artistic, athletic. or business-related 
contribu tions ofmc{jor significan ce in the .field. 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h )(3)(v). 
This regul atory criterion contain s multiple evidentiary elements that the Petitioner must satisfy. The 
first is evidence of his contributions in the field . T hese contri butions must have already been 
realized rather than being potential, future contributions . He must also demonstrate that his 
contributi ons a re o riginal , and are scientific, sc ho larly , artis tic, ath letic, or business-rel ated in nature. 
The tina! requirement is that the cont ribution s rise to the level of major significance in the fie ld as a 
whole , rather than to a proj ect or to an organization . The phrase " maj or sig nifi cance" is not 
superflu ous and , thus, it has meaning. See Silverman v. East rich Multiple investo r Fund , L. P., 5 1 
F.3d 28, 3 1 (3d Cir. 1995) , quoted in APWU v. Poller, 343 F.Jd 6 19, 626 (2d Cir. 2003). The term 
"contributi on's of major significance" connotes that the Petition er's work has signifi cant ly impacted 
the field . See 8 C. F.R. § 204.5(h )(3)( v); see also Visinscaia v. Beers , 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 134 (D.D.C. 
2013). 
The Petiti oner claims that he has made original con tribu tions of maj or sign ificance in the field of 
material chemistry. Specific ally , he claims that his research regarding the use of nano diamo nds in 
drug deliv ery, titanium dioxid e s tructures, and fullerene, and the res ults of such resea rch, have 
signifi cant ly influenced the field. In support of this assertion , he sub mit s num erou~ testim on ial 
lettcrs .3 
Many of the s upporting letters indic ate that the Petitioner 's work has prov ided a basis tor new 
research . , Profes sor and 
Univer sity states that his own research in go ld nanopart icl es was "inspired 
and encour aged" by the Petitioner's work. Simil arly, , CEA Research Director 
for , notes that the Petitioner's research on titanium dioxide structures 
has inspired furt her resear ch in the area. , Secretar y Gene ral and Pro fess or of 
Applied Chemi stry at the Univer sity, refers to the Pet itioner 's pioneer ing 
research using egg albumin and states that a recent paper by his organiza tion was "inspired" by the 
Petition er's use of egg albumin as a bio-templat e. Head of Ope ratio ns for 
states that the Petitioner's researc h " has helped and inspired [him] tremen dously 
on [his] drug form ulation proj ects." While the se letters demonstr ate that the Petitioner' s work ha s 
been disc ussed , reproduced , and compa red by other researchers in the ti eld, the y do not provide 
.l We have reviewed and considered all letters in the record, even if not specifically referenced in this decision. 
3 
.
Maller of J- Y-
specific examples of how the Petitioner's work has significantly impacted the fi eld at large or 
otherwise co nstit utes original co ntributions of major significanc e. 
Several letters discuss the signifi cance of the Petitioner 's current research. Profe sso r 
in the Department of Chemi stry and Biochemistry at desc ribes the 
Petition er's current resear ch on detecting explosive chemical s in p ublic area s, noting it "will 
substantiall y benefit both resea rchers and engine ers in the chemical sensor field." He also states that 
the· 
Petit ioner's ongoing work invo lving controll ed drug relea se mechani sms is "very prom ising" and 
that his prel iminary result s "seem pretty good. " 
, applauds the Petitioner's 
work using egg albumin to prepare titanium dioxid e nanost ructu res, stating that "hi s recen t wo rk will 
provide miss ing puzzle piec es and add more co ntributi ons in the field of material chemi stry." 
Although these attestations discuss the potential imp act of the Petitioner's work, the se references do 
not provide exam ples of how his work is already int1uencing the field suc h that i t qual itie s as a 
contribu tion of major signifi cance. The plain lang uage of 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h) (3)(v ) requ ires the 
Petition er to establi sh that his o riginal co ntribution has alread y had a major and signifi cant impact on 
the field at the time of filing. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). Thu s, the poss ibility of a future impac t, 
· even a profound one, does not sat isfy the criterion 's requirements . 
Several writ ers reference citations to the Petiti oner's work as evidence of his contributi ons. 
references his awareness of two Ph.D . can didates at other univers ities that cited the 
Petitione r's research in their dissertations. note s the Petit ioner's previou s resea rch 
garne red a· significant number of citation s after publication, wh ile 
, states that that he has cited the 
Petition er's \\'Ork in two of his books. claims that the Peti tioner has influenced the studies 
of many resea rchers in the field, noting citati ons to his "experiment al and theoreti cal work on 
nanodiam ond s." In support of this contention , the record contain s citation index es from 
and demon strating that the Petition er's 
publication s have garnere d a total of 160 citation s to date (72 per index , noting that an additi onal 16 
citations have not yet been co llected hy 
When con sidered as a whol e, the record does not sufficiently demonstrate that the citation s to the 
Petition er's research have imp acted the field in a manner consistent with this criteri on·s 
requirement s. The letters subm itted on his behalf indicate that he has influence d som e researchers 
con ductin g sim ilar work, but do not demon strate the signific ance or his impact on the field as a 
whole. The reco rd lack s ev iden ce showing the sig nificance of the number of researcher s influence d 
by his co ntributi ons, or that the number of citation s he has rece ived indic ates a major impact in the 
tield. See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp . 3d at 135-136 (concluding that the decision of U.S. C itizenship and 
Immigr ation Serv ices (USCI S) to give limited weight to uncorroborat ed ass ertions from practitioners 
in the field was not arbitrary and capr icious). 
4 
.
Mauer of J- Y-
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. * 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires "[e]vidence of the a lien's original scientific, 
scholarly, artistic? athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the tield." 
(Emphasis added). Without additional, specil-ic evidence showing that the Petitioner's work has risen to 
the level of contributions of major significance, he has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence l?l the alien ·s authorship (~l scho larly articles in the field , in professiona l or major 
trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
The Petitioner documented his authorship of scholarly a rticles in professional publications, such as 
- ~ a ~ 
Thus, the Director concluded that the Petitioner satistied this 
criterion, and the record supports that tinding. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner is not eligible for the classification 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 full y address the totality of the materials in 
a final merits determination. Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, 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 (~(.1- Y-, 10# I 087158 (AAO Apr. 17, 20 18) 
5