dismissed EB-1A Case: Materials Science

U.S. Citizeriship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF F-Z-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 7, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in the field of materials 
science. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(])(A), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b )(1 )(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 documentatioi:i. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had 
satisfied two of the initial evidentiary criteria, of which he must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he meets a third criterion that relates to original contributions 
of major significance in the field, 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), and qualifies for the classification. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act makes visas available to certain immigrants 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."r 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) sets forth two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
.
Matter of F-Z-
requirements. First, a pet1t10ner can demonstrate 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 documentation that meets at least three of the ten criteria listed under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items such as qualifying awards, published material in certain media, 
and scholarly articles). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
submitted material in a final merits determination and assess whether the record, as a whole, 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, 1119-20 
(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, 1343 (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 
The record, including the Petitioner's resume, shows that he received his Ph.D. degree in materials 
science in 2013, and has been working as a postdoctoral research associate ·at the 
since 2014. According to his 2018 statement, his research area relates to "the development of 
high capacity energy storage devices, including lithium ion battery, sodium ion battery and lithium­
rt 
sulfur battery." 
, 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner meets the participation as a judge criterion under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and the authorship of scholarly articles under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). The 
record supports this conclusion. The Petitioner has presented documentation from 
professional publications, confirming that he 
served as their reviewer and reviewed manuscripts in 2016 and 2017. In addition, the record shows 
that he has authored scholarly articles that are published in professional journals, including 
that appeared in Energy & Environmental Science, and 
that appeared in ACS Nano. Although the Petitioner has satisfied two criteria under 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), he has not satisfied the initial evidence requirements of meeting at 
least three criteria . 1 · . 
1 Th~ Petitioner has not alleged, and ·the record does not demonstrate, that he has received a major, internationally 
· recognized award. See 8 C.F. R: § 204.5(h)(3). As such, he must provide documentation that meets at least three of the 
ten criteria listed under 8 CTR.§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) to satis.fy the initial evidence requirements. 
2 
.
Matter of F-Z-
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he meets a third· criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), 
w~ich requires him to present "[ e ]vidence of [his] original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or 
business-related contributions of major significance in the field." To satisfy this criterion, the 
Petitioner must establish that not only has he made original, con'tributions but that they have been of 
major significance in the field of materials science. Major significance in the field may be shown 
through evidence that his research findings or original methods or processes have been widely 
accepted and 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-record is insufficient to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, 2 that the Petitioner has 
satisfied the original contributions of major significance criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
On appeal, he claims that the number of citations his scholarly articles have garnered and the 
reference letters discussing his research sufficiently establish that he meets this criterion. We 
d. . j 
1sagree. 
According to his January 2018 statement, the Petitioner has "published 14 peer-reviewed arti.9les, 5 
,of them as the first author, in the leading journals in [the] field, including 1 article in Advanced 
Materials [ and] 1 article in ACS Nano." Scientists from different parts of the world have referenced 
his work. Printouts from scholar.google.com, including those dated May 2018, show that his most 
cited work, published in 2013, has garnered approximately 500 citations, while his other articles, 
published between 2012 and 2017, have received between a few hundreds to a handful of citations. 
Materials from Clarivate Analytics indicate that the citation rate of some of his articles is 
comparatively high in the field of materials science. Citation to one's work alone, however, is 
insufficient to confirm contributions of major significance in the field. Rather, we must consider 
whether the Petitioner's articles "have provoked widespread commentary or received notice from 
others working in the field, or ent1)es (particularly a goodly number) in a citation index which cite 
[his] work as authoritative in the field." USCIS Policy. Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, 8. 
Such considerations may confirm that his research meets the original contributions of major 
significance criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). · 
The Petitioner has presented incomplete copies of articles that have cited to his work. These 
_ documents do not verify that his articles have been cited as authoritative in the field or have 
influenced the field in a significant way. Most of the articles briefly reference his work, among 
many other studies, and_ do not include an in-depth discussion on his research. For example, the 
incomplete copies . of the 2016 Advanced Materials · article 
and the 2016Advanced Functional Materials article 
• 2 If a petitioner submits relevant, probative,.and credible evidence that leads U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS) to believe that the claim is ''more likely than not" or "probably true," the petitioner has satisfied the 
"preponderance of the evidence" standard of proof. See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluati on of 
Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 Petition.(' Re,iisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chap ter 
22.2, A FM Update AD I l-14 4 (Dec. 22, 20 I 0), http://www.uscis.gov/laws/policy-memoranda, 
3 
.
Matter of F-Z-
show that each article cites the Petitioner's 2013 research once, in the respective introductory 
paragraph that includes approximately 25 citations to other studies. The Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that brief references to his work confirm that it constitutes contributions of major 
significance. 
Although some m1icles include more information about the Petitioner's work, they do not establish 
that his research has been widely accepted and implemented throughout the field or has otherwise 
risen to a level of major significance in the field. Rather, these articles acknowledge that his studies 
have added to the general pool of knowledge , which, without evidence of significant impact or 
influence in the field, is insufficient to satisfy this criterion. 
The reference letters in the record similarly are insufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner has 
made original contributions of major significance in the field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 3 These 
letters discuss in detail the nature of the Petitioner 's studies , and claim that his work has benefited 
the field. For example , a professor at of Science and 
Technology in China, provides that the Petitioner ' s research "has empowered many other sciences 
[sic] to construct their own experiments and to measure the merit of their findings." a 
professor at the states that the Petitioner's work "has proven very valuable 
for facilitating advancements in [the] field" of materials science. a professor at the 
indicates that the Petitioner '.'has opened new avenues for further 
innovations in the development of batteries and battery components." a professor at 
notes that the Petitioner "has introduced new methods , chemical processes , 
and elements that greatly improve battery function. " . the editor-in-chief of the 
maintains that the Petitioner's "achievements to date include developing 
- a facile, tunable , and cost-effective method of synthesizing high-capacity anode materials." 
These letters, while including information about the Petitioner's research , are insufficient to confirm 
that its impact or influence in the field has risen to the level of "major significance." See Kazarian, 
596 F.3d at 1122 (finding that "letters from physics professors attesting to [a petitioner's] 
contributions in the fiel_d" · were insufficient to meet this _ criterion). The Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that his work - which may have led to incremental improvements in knowledge and 
understanding in the field, as such are expected in any original research - qualities as ·contributions 
of major significance in the field. See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9 
("Letters that lack specifics and simply use hyperbolic language do not add value, and are not 
considered to be probative evidence that may form the basis for meeting this criterion."). 
The above and other letters not specifically discussed, as well as other evidence in the record, show 
that the Petitioner's work has added to the general pool of knowledge in the field. They are, 
however, insufficient to confirm widespread commentary and acceptance of his work, or that the 
field of materials science has regarded his research as authoritative. See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 
·' While not eve;y letter in the record is discussed, all were considered in reaching our conclusion. 
4 
Matter of F-Z-
134-35 (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). Letters that repeat the regulatory language but do 
not sufficiently explain how an ,individual's contributions have alr~ady influenced the field 
significantly are insufficient to satisfy this criterion. See Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036·. 
In his January 2018 statement, the Petitioner indicates that he has "published additio~al articles in 
. ·major conference proceedings" and "authored a book chapter." These activities, as well as the 
publication of his articles, some of them in reputable journals, illustrate that. he has disseminated his 
work in the field.. The Petitioner, however; has not submitted sufficient evidence of the impact or 
influence that his work has·had in the field after dissemination. As such, he has not shown that these 
undertakings satisfy this criterion: · Publications and presentations are not sufficient under this 
criterion absent evidenc~ that they were of "major significance" in the field. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 
580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009), aff'd in part, 596 F.3d 1115. Based ori the evidence in the 
r~cord·,. the Petitioner has not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he has made original 
contributions of major significance in the field of materials science. 
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, upon a 
review of the record in its entirety, we conclude that it does not support a finding that he has 
established the acclaim and recognition required for this classification. 
The· Petitioner seeks a highly· restrictive visa classification; intended for individuals who are already 
at the top of their respective fields, rather than fQr 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). 
~ere, the Petitioner has not shown that the significance of his academic, scholarly, research, and 
professional accomplishments 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)(l)(A) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). . . 
J 
. 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 of F-Z-, ID# 2034743 (AAO Feb. 7, 2019) ..