dismissed EB-1A Case: Materials Research

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
MATTER OF C-G- DATE: FEB. 24,2016 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an engineer who specializes in materials research and product development, seeks 
classification as an individual of "extraordinary ability" in the sciences. See Immigration and 
Nationality Act (Act) § 203(b)(1)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). The Director, Nebraska Service 
Center, denied the petition. The matter is now before us on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The classification the Petitioner seeks makes visas available to foreign nationals who can demonstrate 
extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and achievements that have 
been recognized in the area of expertise through extensive documentation. The Director determined 
that the Petitioner had not satisfied the initial evidentiary requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3), which necessitate a one-time achievement or evidence that meets at least three of ten 
regulatory criteria. On appeal, the Petitioner submits a legal brief. 
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 of the 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, 
(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. 
(b)(6)
Matter of C-G-
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 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 the 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). 
Satisfaction of at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this 
classification. 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 satisfying the required number of criteria, 
considered in the context of a final merits determination). See also Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 
1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011) (affirming our proper application of Kazarian), aff'd, 683 F. 3d 1030 (9th 
Cir. 2012); Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013) (finding that we 
appropriately applied the two-step review); Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) 
(holding that the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality" 
and that we examine "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both 
individually and within the context of the totality ofthe evidence, to determine whether the fact to be 
proven is probably true"). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner received a Master of Science degree in Metallurgical and Material Engineering from 
the in 2004 and a Ph.D. degree in that field from the 
in 2012. Since 2012, he has worked as a research and development 
assistant at the a wood plastic composite manufacturer. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 1 
The Director found the Petitioner met two of the necessary three criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)- (x). Specifically, the Director concluded that the Petitioner demonstrated his 
participation as a judge of the work of others in the field (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv)), and his 
authorship of scholarly articles in the field in professional publications (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi)). 
The Petitioner submitted a letter from the Editor-in-Chief of the 
, as well as an email regarding a manuscript he reviewed for the journal. In addition, the 
Petitioner provided copies of articles he authored that have appeared in scholarly journals, such as 
the and As a result, we 
agree the Petitioner has satisfied these two criteria. 
1 We have reviewed all of the filings and will address those criteria the Petitioner asserts that he meets or for which he 
has submitted relevant and probative evidence. 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of C-G-
Accordingly, the issue at hand is whether the Petitioner meets a third criterion. On appeal, he asserts 
that he has provided evidence of his original contributions of major significance in the field (8 
C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v)), as well as his performance in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation (8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii)). For the reasons 
discussed below, the Petitioner has not satisfied either of these additional criteria. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
The Director found that the Petitioner did not meet this criterion. While acknowledging the 
numerous reference letters the Petitioner had submitted, the Director concluded that the prospective 
nature of the impacts identified and the limited number of citations to his published papers did not 
establish he met this criterion. On appeal, the Petitioner highlights letters of recommendation from 
those familiar with his work.2 The Petitioner provided references from the following professionals: 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Professor at the 
Professor at the 
Rector of 
, Professor at 
Professor at 
Turkey; 
• Vice President of Scientific Affairs at 
• Laboratory Manager at 
• Technology Manager at 
• Senior Materials Scientist, 
• Research Professor at 
• Senior Staff Engineer at 
• Professor at and Chair of 
Engineering Department. 
and Editor-in-Chief of the 
Mexico; 
and 
Materials Science and 
Most of the letters the Petitioner submitted were from academics with whom he worked throughout 
the course of his studies. They spoke highly of the Petitioner as a colleague and a researcher. To 
satisfy this criterion, however, the evidence must establish that the Petitioner's contributions are not 
only original, but rise to the level of major significance in the field as a whole. See 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v). Regardless of the field, the plain language of the phrase "contributions of major 
significance in the field" requires an impact beyond one's employer and clients or 
customers. See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 135-36 (upholding a finding that a ballroom dancer had not 
met this criterion because she did not demonstrate her impact in the field as a whole). 
On appeal, the Petitioner highlights letters from colleagues who provided positive assessments of his 
discoveries. A letter from who supervised the Petitioner's master's thesis, stated that the 
2 We discuss only a sampling of these letters, but have reviewed and considered each one. 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of C-G-
Petitioner "successfully developed and designed the product for the 
first time in Turkey." did not, however, explain the significance of this accomplishment 
or the impact it has had in the field. 
Similarly, the Petitioner submitted two letters from 
research as follows: 
who discussed the Petitioner's Ph.D. 
[The Petitioner] is the first scientist who attempts to improve the toughness of 
castables by using in castables. [He] significantly established a novel 
process to produce high toughness self flow alumina refractories. Through his 
groundbreaking studies, [the Petitioner] unfolded the effect of additions of 
and on the exhibited toughness of self castable alumina 
refractories. 
As of the date of filing, the Petitioner had presented these results and submitted a manuscript for 
publication. Neither the letter nor other evidence in the record contains further details on how these 
findings have significantly impacted the field, either for purposes of practical application or future 
academics. The research might have added to the general pool of knowledge, but investigating a 
novel hypothesis, without documented impact in the field, is not indicative of a contribution of major 
significance. Similarly, stated that the Petitioner's research "has had and will have 
direct applications in advanced power generation technologies which require increased operating 
temperatures of steel components which must perform without degradation at these temperatures." 
This letter, however, did not explain how the "direct applications" have already impacted the field as 
a whole, and/or if the impact was so significant that it constituted contributions of major 
significance. 
stated: "[The Petitioner] has been able to show the outstanding potential of utilizing 
nanomaterials in refractory ceramics. This is a revolutionary research topic that has great potential 
value to the entity that can capture the advancements." letter did not contain further 
details regarding the Petitioner's discoveries within that research topic and whether the Petitioner's 
own contributions to that topic were themselves "revolutionary" or otherwise significant. It 
similarly did not explain why the Petitioner's discoveries were of such great potential value. We 
need not accept primarily conclusory and unsubstantiated assertions. 1756, Inc. v. Attorney General 
of United States , 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). Lastly, we note that and 
referred to the potential value of the Petitioner 's research. Likewise, 
affirmation that the Petitioner's research "will give [refractory industries the] opportunity to use 
castables more efficiently," does not demonstrate that the Petitioner meets this criterion. In sum, 
these letters from the Petitioner's colleagues do not document how his results or methodologies have 
been of major significance in the field. 
Some of the submitted letters are from professionals in industries for which the Petitioner's research 
could have practical uses. stated he is "confident
" that his company, 
. could apply the Petitioner 's methods in its manufacturing processes. 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of C-G-
affirmed that was planning a pilot to determine if the Petitioner's research 
methods could be applied on a large scale. As noted in the Director's denial, these letters described 
prospective future applications of the Petitioner's research and were not indicative of its significance 
at the time of filing. explained that while seeking "local testing capability," his 
laboratory approached who recommended the Petitioner. continued that 
his company used the Petitioner's discoveries to help develop new self-leveling underlayments as 
follows: "[A]fter digging more into [the Petitioner's] research we were able to formulate with 
reduced amounts of cement which enabled us to formulate a 'cost conscious' product that is 
competitive in the market place." At the time of letter, the project was "in the scale 
up stage." This letter confirmed a practical application of the Petitioner's findings, but it did not 
discuss how his studies impacted the field. Evidence showing the Petitioner's work is practical and 
has attracted the attention of a few companies is insufficient to demonstrate that he has made 
contributions of major significance in the field. ' 
In the denial, the Director noted that the Petitioner did not have a patent for the work that these 
companies will apply. On appeal, he states that discoveries can have major significance simply by 
virtue of their impact on the scientific research community. We agree; while patents can confirm the 
originality of a discovery and licensing or other use can reflect an impact, they are not the sole 
means of doing so. Nevertheless, it is the Petitioner's burden to provide some evidence of the 
impact of his original contributions. The record includes a printout showing that he 
has authored four articles published in academic journals. The four papers have a combined total of 
four citations, with a citation frequency of not more than three per article. While not determinative, 
this level of reference is not consistent with published research that has been of major significance in 
the field. 
The record includes an exhibit indicating that there were 428 total views of the Petitioner's 2013 
article. The material did not provide information on who 
viewed the article, or if the same individuals viewed the article multiple times. In addition, more 
probative than the number of views is whether those readers ultimately found the article useful. 
Furthermore, the record lacks evidence showing that 428 views signify that the article is examined 
more frequently than a typical published article in the field. 
The Petitioner provided proof that he attended academic conferences and presented research. The 
record shows that the Petitioner presented his research findings at one international conference, 
while a coauthor presented the same findings at another. Presenting at conferences, whether 
domestic or international, suggests that the Petitioner has disseminated his findings. To meet this 
criterion, the Petitioner must document the impact in the field after dissemination. Other than 
reference letters stating in a conclusory manner that the field was receptive of the Petitioner's work, 
the record lacks sufficient evidence demonstrating the research impacted the field at a level 
consistent with a finding of contributions of major significance. In addition, the limited number of 
citations to the Petitioner's scholarly articles does not indicate that his findings constitute 
contributions of major significance. 
(b)(6)
Matter of C-G-
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the significance of his research is further demonstrated by 
his receipt of an award, 
issued by The record does not contain 
primary evidence ofthe Petitioner's receipt ofthis award.j Although the Petitioner affirms that 
selected his article for this honor, the submitted reference letter from did not 
support this statement. According to the letter, he came across the Petitioner's paper, 
and felt that it would 
"be of importance to database and to alert Engineers worldwide." 
The letter did not, however, mention a Key Scientific Article designation or any other award issued 
by Furthermore, although many of the letters commented on the prestige 
associated with the designation, none provided supporting details relating to the criteria under which 
the award is granted. for example, said that "[the Petitioner] marked the first 
doctoral graduate of our program to receive this prestigious award based on his research and 
publications." Neither the letters nor other materials in the record include information such as the 
number of the awards given each year, the criteria used for selection, the qualifications of those 
making the selections, and what publicity is afforded to those who receive the designation. Without 
corroboration that this designation considers the impact of the findings rather than their promising 
nature, it is not indicative that the results reported in the Petitioner's article are contributions of 
major significance. 
General, solicited letters from colleagues that do not specifically identify contributions or provide 
specific examples of how those contributions influenced the field are insufficient.4 Kazarian v. 
USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009), aff'd in part, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). The 
opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and have been considered above. We may, in 
our discretion, use as advisory opinions statements filed as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron 
Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, we are ultimately responsible for making 
the final determination regarding a foreign national's eligibility for the benefit sought. !d. The 
submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive proof of eligibility; we 
may, as this decision has done above, evaluate the content and corroboration of those letters as to 
whether they support a petitioner's eligibility. See id. at 795; Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 
(upholding our decision to give minimal weight to vague, solicited letters from colleagues or 
associates that do not include details on contributions of major significance in the field); see also 
Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not 
purport to be evidence as to "fact"); Matter of Sofjici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998) 
(citing Matter of Treasure Craft of Cal(fornia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
3 The regulation at 8 C.F.R § 103.2(b)(2) requires primary evidence unless the Petitioner shows that such documentation 
either does not exist or is unavailable. The Petitioner did not assert the award certificate is unavailable and did not 
submit secondary evidence, such as media coverage of the issuance or a press release announcing the selection. 
4 In 2010, the Kazarian court reiterated that our conclusion that "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. 
(b)(6)
Matter ofC-G-
In assessing whether the Petitioner has met this criterion, we consider the letters of reference, as well 
as corroborating documentation. In this case, the letters provided, considered in conjunction with 
the other evidence in the record, do not establish contributions of major significance. For these 
reasons, the Petitioner has not satisfied this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The Director found that the Petitioner did not meet this criterion, noting that, although he 
demonstrated his involvement with organizations with distinguished reputations, he did not show he 
performed a leading or critical role. A leading role should be evident from its position in the overall 
organizational hierarchy and the role's matching duties. Similarly, a critical role is apparent by its 
overall impact within the organization or establishment. On appeal, the Petitioner indicates that he 
has performed in a leading or critical role for and the 
First, the Petitioner states that he played a leading role at when he performed a 
1 0-week 
engineering internship at in the summer of 2008. The Petitioner 
provided a letter from the laboratory manager, who noted that the Petitioner was a 
talented and skilled researcher. said that the laboratory continues to build on the 
Petitioner's research. Neither this letter nor other evidence in the record suggests that the 
Petitioner's 
role as an intern can be classified as leading or critical for as a whole, or even the 
facility. The fact that others have continued to pursue the project on which the Petitioner's spent 10-
weeks is more indicative of the promise of the project than the Petitioner's role there. The record 
does not support the conclusion that the Petitioner's role as a summer intern, either by virtue of his 
position in the overall organizational hierarchy, or through his impact, satisfies this criterion. 
Second, the Petitioner's resume indicates that he worked at as a laboratory manager, teaching 
assistant, and research assistant from 2006 to 2012 while pursuing his Ph.D. degree. 
listed the Petitioner's academic and research achievements, and stated that his department 
experienced an increased emollment because of "the collective accomplishments of individuals like 
[the Petitioner]'s work that help promote our faculty and program." also provided 
information on the Petitioner's efforts as the laboratory manager, where he updated teaching 
laboratories and teaching assistant training. This letter confirmed that the Petitioner was a 
productive doctoral student, whose achievements had a positive impact on those around him. The 
record, however, does not establish that this laboratory enjoys a distinguished reputation independent 
of Accordingly, at issue is whether the Petitioner played a critical or leading role within 
either or the department, as a whole. The record, however, does not include information in 
regard to how the Petitioner's various positions fit within the overall hierarchy of the university or 
department, or how his positions impacted either organization as a whole. 
acknowledged that although the Petitioner has positively impacted the department, the increased 
emollment could not "be attributed to any single factor or individual." 
(b)(6)
Matter of C-G-
Lastly, the Petitioner asserts that he has performed in a leading or critical role for his employer. The 
Petitioner provided a letter from Research and Development Manager at the 
who supervised the Petitioner at the company. stated that the 
business has employed the Petitioner as a Research and Development Assistant since September 
2012, and that his responsibilities in this position "focused on new product development, process 
improvement, cost analysis, and new formula designs," as well as improving manufacturing 
processes. characterized the Petitioner as a "goal-oriented researcher committed to 
excellence." This letter confirmed that the Petitioner was a respected employee and performed tasks 
typical for engineers in research and development departments. To meet this criterion, however, the 
Petitioner must show that he has played a leading or critical role within the organization as a whole. 
No information has been presented regarding the Petitioner's position within the organization's 
overall hierarchy, or regarding his impact on the organization as a whole. Without more, the letter 
from regarding the Petitioner's employment is not sufficient to demonstrate a leading or 
critical role within the corporation. For the above reasons, the Petitioner has not met the plain 
language requirements of this criterion. 
B. Summary 
As noted above, the documentation provided satisfies only two of the regulator criteria. As a result, 
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 listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The material submitted in support of extraordinary ability must show that the individual has achieved 
sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage who has risen to the very 
top of his or her field of endeavor. Had the Petitioner satisfied at least three evidentiary categories, 
the next step would be a final merits determination that considers all of the filings in the context of 
whether or not the Petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a "level of expertise indicating that the individual 
is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor," and (2) that 
the individual "has sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her achievements have 
been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d 
at 1119-20 (discussing a two-part review where the evidence is first counted and then, if satisfying 
the required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination). Although 
we need not provide the type of final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, a review of the 
record in the aggregate supports a finding that the Petitioner has not established the level of expertise 
required for the classification sought. 5 
5 We maintain de novo review of all questions of fact and law. In any future proceeding, we maintain the jurisdiction to 
conduct a final merits determination as the office that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.5(a)(l )(ii); 
see also INA§§ 103(a)(l), 204(b); DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 (2003); 
8 C.F.R. § 103.l(f)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of Aurelio, 19 I&N Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987) (holding that legacy INS, now 
USCIS, is the sole authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa petitions). 
0 
Matter of C-G-
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to 
establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. § 291 of the Act. Here, the Petitioner has 
not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofC-G-, ID# 15547 (AAO Feb. 24, 2016) 
9