dismissed EB-1A Case: Materials Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF W-G-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAR. 26, 2019 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a scientific programmer, 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 Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, 
concluding that the Petitioner had satisfied only two of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, of which he 
must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional documentation and a brief asserting that he fulfills at least 
three of the ten criteria. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(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 ofW-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 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. USCIS, 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 ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
11. ANALYSIS 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner was working as a scientific programmer at 
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). In denying the petition, the Director found that the 
Petitioner met only two of the initial evidentiary criteria: judging under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) 
and scholarly articles under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). The record reflects that the Petitioner served 
as a peer reviewer of manuscripts and authored scholarly articles in professional publications. 
Accordingly, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner fulfilled the judging and scholarly articles 
criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he meets one additional criterion, discussed below. We have 
reviewed all of the evidence in the record and conclude that it does not support a finding that he 
satisfies the requirements of at least three criteria. 
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). 
As evidence under this criterion, the Petitioner submitted his research publications, citation evidence 
for his published work, and letters of recommendation from colleagues. The Director considered this 
2 
.
Matter ofW-G-
documentation, but found that it was not sufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner's work 
constituted original contributions of major significance in the field. For the reasons discussed below, 
we agree with that determination. 
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 contributions that were original 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 the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major 
significance in the field. 
As one type of evidence of the impact of his work, the record includes a 2018 Google Scholar citation 
report indicating that his 2013 article entitled 
was "cited by 74." His next most cited articles, 
(2014) and 
(2009), were cited 48 and 21 times respectively. Regarding the Petitioner's remaining 
articles published from 2007 until 2014, the aforementioned Google Scholar report reflects that they 
have been cited 12, 7, and 3 times respectively. 1 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director erred in comparing his citation information with that 
of another researcher whose name appears in the record. We agree that comparison of the Petitioner's 
cumulative citation record to that of other scientists or researchers in the record is not appropriate in 
determining whether he has made original contributions of major significance in the field. Rather, the 
evaluation of the Petitioner's overall citation evidence relative to others in his field would be more 
relevant in a final merits determination to demonstrate his sustained national or international acclaim, 
that he is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, and that his achievements 
have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. 
The Petitioner maintains that he has published research articles in top-ranked 2 scientific journals and 
that the InCites Essential Science Indicators (IESI) citation rate for two of his papers is high relative 
to others in his field. For example, he offered information from IESI indicating that his paper, entitled 
is in the 
top 10% most cited by subject area (materials science) for the year in which it was published, having 
been cited more than 30 times since 2013. In addition, 
· is also in the top 10% most cited in materials science, having been cited more than 26 times 
since 2014. The comparative ranking of a paper's citation rate, however, 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. 
1 Six of his articles listed in this report do not show any citations. 
2 That a publication bears a high ranking is reflective of its overall citation rate. Ranking alone, however, does not demonstrate 
the influence of any particular author within the publication or show that an author's research has had an impact within the 
field. 
3 
.
Matter ofW-G-
Generally, citations can confirm that the field has taken interest in a researcher's work. The Petitioner 
submitted various examples of articles that cited to his work; however they do not reflect that his work 
was singled out as particularly important. Rather, the Petitioner's findings were utilized as background 
information to the authors' papers. In this case, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the citations 
to his work, considered both individually and collectively, are commensurate with contributions "of 
major significance in the field." 
As another form of evidence under this criterion, the Petitioner contends that experts in the field have 
offered testimony regarding his contributions of major significance in material science.3 For example, 
principal materials scientist of (an engineering firm) at the 
indicated that the Petitioner's "pioneering paper on the local atomic structure 
of high-energy entropy alloys is the very first breakthrough studying the lattice distortion in HEAs" 
(high-entropy alloys). further contended that the Petitioner's findings represent "a milestone 
in the field of HEA research" allowing scientists to "move forward to study the effect of lattice 
distortion on the mechanical properties of HEAs." Likewise, a researcher at 
asserted that the Petitioner's work "was the first study which clearly 
unraveled the lattice distortion of the local structure feature in HEAs from PDF [pair distribution 
function] analysis." In addition, stated that he used the Petitioner's method in his recent 
HEA research and then listed a few other research groups that cited to the Petitioner's work in their 
own studies. We recognize that research must add information to the pool of knowledge in some way 
in order to be accepted for publication, presentation, funding, or academic credit, but not every finding 
that broadens knowledge in a particular field is tantamount to a scientific contribution of major 
significance in that field. Here, the record does not show that the Petitioner's findings have been 
widely implemented or otherwise represent a scientific contribution of major significance in his field. 
Furthermore, a professor at asserted 
that the Petitioner's research findings relating to HEAs represented a "technical breakthrough" 
because they proved "that there are lattice distortions in HEAs" and allowed "scientists to better 
understand the material properties ... so that they can design new alloys with less trial and error." 
Similarly, a professor at indicated that the 
Petitioner's work "drew significant interest and follow up studies in the HEA research community," 
but the evidence does not show that the impact of the Petitioner's work rises to the level of a 
contribution of major significance in the field. The record includes two book chapters written by 
in that briefly reference the Petitioner's work relating to the irradiation 
resistance of HEAs. The record, however, does not demonstrate that that having his work referenced 
in this book shows that this findings have affected the field of material science in a substantial way or 
that his work otherwise constitutes a contribution of major significance in the field. 
The record includes additional recommendation letters from the Petitioner ' s peers. Although these 
remaining letters praise his work, they do not demonstrate how his contributions are "of major 
significance in the field." Instead, the letters reference the importance of the Petitioner 's works as 
indicated by their publication in professional journals and their citation by other researchers. As 
discussed above, the Petitioner has not shown through his citation history or other evidence that his 
work, once published or presented, has been of major significance in the field. While the selection of 
3 While we discuss a sampling of the recommendation letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 
Matter ofW-G-
the Petitioner's articles in professional journals verifies the originality of his work, it does not 
necessarily reflect that his research is considered of major significance. Without sufficient evidence 
demonstrating that his work constitutes original scientific contributions of major significance in the 
field, the Petitioner has not established that he meets 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 
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 and recognition of his work are indicative of the required sustained 
national or international acclaim or that they are consistent with a "career of acclaimed work in the 
field" as contemplated by Congress. HR 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 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. 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. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Skirball Cultural Ctr., 25 I&N Dec. 799, 806 (AAO 2012). Here, 
that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofW-G-, ID# 2592468 (AAO Mar. 26, 2019) 
5