dismissed EB-1A Case: Materials Chemistry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 5784760 
Appeal of a Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 7, 2020 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner , a postdoctoral associate in materials chemistry, seeks classification as an individual 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 record did not 
establish that Petitioner met at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria , of which he must meet 
at least three. On appeal, the Petitioner claims that he meets three criteria and is eligible for the 
requested classification . 
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, a materials chemist, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in the 
sciences. He received his bachelor's and master's degrees in chemistry a~ !University in China, 
and completed his Ph.D. in chemistry atl !University in 2018. At the time of filing, he was 
employed as a postdoctoral associate atl !University's School of Chemical and Biomolecular 
Engineering. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
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). The Director found that the Petitioner met only two of the initial evidentiary 
criteria, judging the work of others in his field and authorship of scholarly articles. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 
204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi). The Petitioner's documentary evidence indicates that he has peer-reviewed 
manuscripts for several journals including Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, Journal of the 
Electrochemical Society, and Materials Today Chemistry. 
In addition, the record contains evidence that the Petitioner has authored scholarly articles published 
in journals including Journal o_f Materials Chemistry, Nano Research, Chemical Communications and 
The Journal of Physical Chemistry C. Accordingly, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner 
fulfilled the requirements of the judging and scholarly articles criteria. On appeal, the Petitioner 
maintains that he also satisfies the requirements of the criterion relating to original contributions of 
major significance in his field. We will analyze the evidence submitted under this criterion below. 
After reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we find that the Petitioner has not established that he 
satisfies at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria. 
Evidence o_f the individual's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major sign[ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
2 
In order to meet this criterion, a pet1t10ner 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. 
The Petitioner claimed in his initial cover letter that he made five original contributions of major 
significance in the field, as evidenced by his published research, citation record, and letters from 
experts in the field. Specifically, he highlighted the following areas of research: (1) synthetic 
strategies for creating and their applications (four published 
articles); (2) environmental protection abilities of 
,___~ _________ ._.,dye removal ( five published articles); (3 j I hybrid materials 
and the( appli
1
ations in rechargeable batteries and dye removal (four published articles); (4) high 
voltage materials and the impact of~--:---:---:--------:-;::::=======:;---:-'.'"""---' on 
I I ion batteries ( four published articles); and ( 5) investigatina I of battery 
electrodes during I I activities using I I I I ( one published article). 
Although the Petitioner provided evidence reflecting the originality of his research through 
recommendation letters praising him for his contributions, the authors do not provide specific 
examples of contributions that are indicative of major significance. 2 In general, the letters recount 
the Petitioner's research and findings, indicate their publications in journals, and point to the citation 
of his work by others. Although they reflect the novelty of his work, they do not show how his research 
and findings have been considered of such importance and how their impact on the field rises to the 
level required by this criterion. 
With respect to his research of synthetic strategies for creating L,------..---------.--------1 
the Petitioner provided three letters from experts in his_.-=fi..:.e:..:ld::..:.·--====.-----. ........... ~~~~....., ._ __ ..,D 
University, explains that the Petitioner developed anl ~assisted........_ ____ _.synthetic 
method to create ,__ ________ ~ and discovered that the performance of such synthesized 
I I was superior to commercially-available bulk materials of the samf comoo~ition with 
respect to certain practical applications, including the removal of water ollutants . ._ __ __.jstates that 
the Petitioner's discovery of growth mechanisms for,__ _________ provides "a blueprint 
for the further design and preparation of functional ~----~" and notes that he used the 
Petitioner's! I as part of his own published enzyme mimic study. 
Similarly,! I a professor atDuniversity states that the Petitioner's "research into the 
material synthesis, growth mechanisms and functional a lications of0 acted as a cornerstone" 
into his own investigation on.__ __ .----.------------' and "strongly informed [his] 
methods of optimizing my materials.' ,___~provides an example of another team of researchers that 
cited the Petitioner's work states thaf the Petitioner has made "significant headway" in the 
development ofl _ and indicates that his research "continually serves as a guide 
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 ADJJ-14 8-9 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html (stating 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 Although we do not discuss every letter submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
3 
of other researchers aiming to optimize the sensitivity and reliability of c::==::J through the use of 
precisely controlled I I" However, neithd lnorl__Jforther elaborated or 
discussed whether the Petitioner's findings have been implemented beyond informing the research of 
other scientists in the same field, and if so, the extent of their application. Neither letter specified how 
his research towards the development of I lis deemed a majorly significant 
contribution to the field. 
A third letter from describes the Petitioner's syntheses and analysis of._l __ _. 
as a "landmark study for the field," noting that the Petitioner's research "laid the 
~g_ro_u_n_d_w_o_r_k_f_o_r_t_h~e development o±1 I with cutting-edge I k applications." D 
[ I states "in direct recognition of its ingenuity and significance" he used the Petitioner's work on 
l.__ -------~l as the basis for his own study on~----------~ detection. 
Finally, he indicates that the Petitioner "has enabled fellow researchers to understand the properties of 
these materials in unr,recedented depth" and "established guidelines for the advancement ofi I 
technology." Whilel !describes the Petitioner's research as "landmark" and "pivotal," he 
does not discuss in detail how the work has already remarkably impacted their shared field, elaborate 
on the "established guidelines," or provide examples of specific applications attributed to the 
Petitioner's work. 
With respect to the Petitioner's investigation of the environmental protection abilities ofl.__ __ __. 
L.....,----~---~~.1-l _h_e ..... p_r_o---,vided a letter from.__ _______ _.a professor at Universita 
degli Studi I 11 ~ explains that the Petitioner's research in this area is "deeply 
impactfol" and "groundbreaking in its approach" by demonstrating that varying parameters can 
provided "an unprecedented level of control over the I I 
m.__ _____________ ___. He farther states that he and several other teams of 
researchers have relied on the Beneficiary's published work in this area, noting that the Petitioner has 
been an essential contributor to projects that are "advancing the state of materials science" and noting 
his "immeasurable impact on the field." Whild l's letter praises the Petitioner's research, 
he has not sufficiently detailed in what ways the Petitioner has advanced the state of research in his 
field or elaborated on how the Petitioner's work has already impacted the wider field beyond the teams 
of researchers who have directly cited his articles. 
The Petitioner's investigation of._l ----.----~lm_a_te_r_ia_l_s _,and their applications is addressed in two 
of the submitted expert opinion letters. I I explains that the Petitioner developed a 
I I strategy for creating materials," and found that thesel .... --------"''-',;-1-m-a-te_r_i-al_s_, _w_h_e_n_a_p_p_l-ie-d-to-an_e_le_c_t_ro_d_e_,_e_nh_a_n_c_e-it-s~ 
overall electrochemical performance, and can also be used to remove dye pollution from water. He 
refers to the Petitioner as "a guiding light in his discipline" with contributions in materials research 
"that affect everything from medicine to energy storage to industrial chemistry" and opines that his 
"of enormous value to the world." A letter from I I also discusses the Petitioner's 
"originally developed synthetic method forl !materials." She explains that 
'I ~ materials possess one-of-a-kind electronic properties and mechanical 
strength" and states that the Petitioner's development of a reliable method for their preparation "has 
enabled others throu
9
hout our shared field to take advantage of these properties in previously 
unimaginable ways." L !indicates that she has relied on the Petitioner's method to carry out 
four of her own related studies, describes her own research, and concludes that the Petitioner is "a 
4 
foremost expert on a complex class of I I holding considerable commercial, industrial and 
environmental value." Although I I confirms that she and several other researchers have found 
the Petitioner's work useful and applicable to their own research projects, her statement does not 
establish that the Petitioner's findings have been widely implemented in the field, or explained how 
they have already been of significant "commercial, industrial and environmental value." Similarly, 
I Is statement is not sufficiently detailed to support his conclusion that the Petitioner's 
contributions to materials science are "of enormous value to the world." 
Finally, the Petitioner provided a letter from I I a staff scientist at 
Laboratory, who discusses the Petitioner's research in high voltage I lma....,.t-er-i-al_s_i_n ____ _ 
ion batteries and in observing the of battery electrodes during 
activities using I I He summarizes the Pet....,.it-i-on_e_r_' s-st_u_d-ie-s~ 
in these areas, noting that hisl !research in particular were essential to biomedical engineers 
who were seeking to improve the functionality o~ !defibrillators. However, 
he does not indicate that the Petitioner's research has been widely applied in the field or how it has 
already been adopted by biomedical engineers. 
The letters considered above primarily contain attestations of the novelty and utility of the Petitioner's 
research studies without providing specific examples of contributions that rise to a level consistent 
with major significance. Letters that specifically articulate how a petitioner's contributions are of 
major significance to the field and its impact on subsequent work add value. 3 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. 4 USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory 
statements. 1756, Inc. v. The US. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). The authors' 
assertions in the above-referenced letters do not explain how the Petitioner's research findings have 
been widely implemented or relied upon by others in the field or not establish that the Petitioner's 
work has had a demonstrable impact on the field as a whole commensurate with a contribution of 
major significance. 
The Petitioner also submits his publication and citation record from Google Scholar. But this evidence 
not show that the impact of his work on the overall field of materials chemistry rises to the level of an 
original contribution of major significance. The fact that the Petitioner has published articles that 
other researchers have referenced is not, by itself: indicative of a contribution of major significance. 
Publications are not sufficient under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that they were of 
"major significance." We acknowledge, however, that a petitioner may present evidence that his 
articles "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 [his] work as authoritative in 
the field, may be probative of the significance of [his] contributions to the field of endeavor." 5 
Here, the Petitioner submitted evidence from Clarivate Analytics showing that some of the articles he 
published were ranked among the top 10% in citations when grouped by academic field (in this case, 
chemistry) and year of publication. He further submitted a paper published in the journal 
3 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, supra, at 8-9. 
4 Id. at 9. 
5 Id. at 8. 
5 
Scientometrics which suggests that this metric is one of three that should be used to evaluate individual 
researchers in the natural and life sciences" for purposes of funding and promotion or hiring decisions. 
The authors state that "publications which are among the 10% most cited publications in their subject 
area are as a rule called highly cited or excellent" and that "the top 10% based excellence indicator" 
should be given "the highest weight when comparing the scientific performance of single researchers." 
However, this evidence does not establish that metrics that may be suitable for comparing applicants 
for academic research positions and grants are indicators that a researcher has made contributions of 
major significance to his or her field. 6 
Comparative rankings to baseline or average citation rates do not automatically establish that a given 
petitioner has made a contribution of major significance in the field. 7 A more appropriate analysis, 
for example, would be to compare the Petitioner's citations for individual articles to other similarly, 
highly cited articles that the field views as having been of major significance, as well as factoring in 
other corroborating evidence. Highly-cited publications alone are not sufficient under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that they were of "major significance" as a citation ranking does not 
provide sufficient context to determine the impact or importance of a given researcher's work in the 
field. That context must be provided by other evidence in the record. 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated, as he asserts, any of the nine articles he characterizes as highly 
cited resulted in an original contribution of major significance in the field. While the Petitioner 
submitted corroborating evidence in the form of expert opinion letters, that evidence, for the reasons 
already discussed, is not sufficient to establish that any of the Petitioner's research findings, 
individually or collectively, have remarkably impacted or influenced his field. 
Further, the record indicates that the Petitioner submitted samples of articles that cited to his work. A 
review of those articles, though, does not show the significance of the Petitioner's research to the 
overall field beyond the authors who cited to his work. For instance, the Petitioner provided a partial 
~-------------------~,Analytica Chimica Acta), in which the authors 
cited to his 2012 Journal of Materials Chemistry article. 8 However, the article does not distinguish or 
highlight the Petitioner's written work from the over 53 other cited papers. Here, the Petitioner has 
not shown how any of his published articles have an impact that rises to the level of "major 
significance" consistent with this regulatory criterion. 
The Petitioner also emphasizes that his publications have been cited in several review articles, and 
submits a screenshot of a page from the website of the University ofDLibraries titled "What's a 
6 Further, we note that evidence that summarizes citations to the Petitioner's entire body of published work do not 
demonstrate that any specific work of his is so widely cited and relied upon that it is considered to have made a major 
impact in his field. Comparison of the Petitioner's cumulative citations to others in the field is often more appropriate in 
determining whether the record shows sustained national or international acclaim and demonstrates that he is among the 
small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor in a final merits determination. 
7 For instance, according to the data from Clarivate Analytics, chemistry papers published in 2017 receiving only seven 
citations and in 2018 receiving only two citations are in the top 10%. The Petitioner has not demonstrated that papers with 
such citation counts have necessarily had a major, significant impact or influence in the field as evidenced by being among 
the top 10% of most highly cited articles according to year of publication. 
8 Although we discuss a sample article, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
6 
'Review Article?"' Counsel states that "the appearances of [the Petitioner's] studies in the review 
literature demonstrate his status as an authority in the field, showing that he has not simply performed 
research that adds to the pool of knowledge, but has inspired meaningful discourse throughout the 
field." The evidence indicates that review articles are "an attempt to ... sum up the current state of 
the research on a particular topic" and may identify "the main people working in a field" and "recent 
major advances and discoveries." One of the submitted review articles, titled '--------~ 
.__ ___________________________ __.(Chem.Soc. Rev.), cites 
to the Petitioner's 2012 Journal o Materials Chemistr: article amon at least 292 other articles. 
Another review article titled ' 
'----------------' ' (Materials Chemistry A), cites to the Petitioner's 2011 Chemical 
Communications Article among at least 620 other articles. While the evidence indicates that the 
Petitioner has made original contributions to what appears to be a very active field of research, we 
cannot determine that every publication cited in a review article is indicative of an individual 
contribution of major significance, and the evidence does not distinguish the Petitioner's publications 
from the many others cited. 
The Petitioner refers to our non-precedent decision concerning an atomics physics researcher who 
petitioned under this classification. This decision was not published as a precedent and therefore does 
not bind USCIS officers in future adjudications. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c). Non-precedent decisions 
apply existing law and policy to the specific facts of the individual case, and may be distinguishable 
based on the evidence in the record of proceedings, the issues considered, and applicable law and 
policy. Nevertheless, we note that the Petitioner emphasizes that, in the referenced decision, we 
determined that "over 350 citations, in conjunction with reference letters, are good evidence of a 
petitioner's contributions of major significance." However, the non-precedent decision also highlights 
the fact that we placed significant weight on the statements of experts who clearly described how the 
petitioner's scientific contributions were both original and of major significance in their filed. The 
expert opinion letters submitted in this matter did not contain sufficient probative analysis regarding 
the major significance of the Petitioner's contributions. 
Considered together, the evidence consisting of the citations to the Petitioner's published findings, the 
citation statistics, and the reference letters from his fellow materials chemists and other experts, 
establishes that the Petitioner has been productive, and that his published data and findings have been 
relied upon by others in their own research. It does not demonstrate that the Petitioner has made a 
contribution of major significance in the field of materials chemistry. Therefore, he has not met this 
criterion. 
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 
7 
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 )(1 )(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. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
8