dismissed EB-1A Case: Materials Science

.
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF F-Q-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JULY 9, 2018 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITIONER FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a researcher in the field of materials science, seeks classification as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(l)(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 documentation. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Petitioner has sustained national or international acclaim and is one of 
the small percentage of researchers at the very top of his field . 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that the totality of the evid ence 
demonstrates that he meets the requirements for this immigrant visa classification. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 1 
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 in the area of extraordinary 
ability, and 
1 On April 12, 2018, the Director approved the Petitioner's Form 1-140 filed under the sam e classification in a 
subsequ ent case, The decision in that separate petition will not be considered in our review in this 
proceeding . 
Matter of F-Q-
(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). 
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 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), aff'd, 683 
F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Matter of Chawathe, 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 U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) examines "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"). According! y, where a 
petitioner submits qualifying evidence under at least three criteria, we will determine whether the 
totality of 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitioner meets the requisite three of the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), those relating to service as a judge of the work of others, original contributions 
of major significance to the field, and authorship of scholarly articles. However, the Director found 
that the totality of the evidence in the record did not establish the Petitioner's sustained national or 
international acclaim, or that he is one of the very small percentage of those at the top of the field of 
materials science. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the evidence of his work as a peer reviewer, 
hundreds of citations to his work by other researchers, and media reports covering research which he 
has contributed to demonstrate his national or international acclaim. After reviewing all of the 
evidence in the record, we agree that the Petitioner has established he meets at least three of the 
required criteria, but find that he has not established his sustained acclaim or that he is one of the 
very small percentage of researchers at the top of his field. 
The Petitioner first draws attention to several non-precedent AAO decisions for the extraordinary 
ability classification. He notes that in those cases, we found that a petitioner with fewer citations 
established either that he or she had made original contributions of major significance to the field or 
2 
.
Matter of F-Q-
had risen to the top of his or her field. However, these decisions were not published as a precedent 
and therefore do 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. In this case, two of the non-precedent decisions submitted by the 
Petitioner on appeal were issued before the Kazarian decision, after which USCIS altered its policy 
and began applying a two-part approach to the adjudication of petitions under this classification. 
More importantly, we do not accept the premise that the number of citations to a particular 
researcher 's published work in one field can be compared to that of another researcher in a different 
field in determining his or her standing as a top researcher. Such an analysis does not take into 
account differences in the way that knowledge is disseminated in various scientific fields, differing 
expectations of researchers , and varying levels of research activity in scientific fields over time.2 
In his decision , the Director responded to the Petitioner ' s submission of citation 
records for other researchers in his field by reviewing those records for the researchers who 
submitted reference letters on the Petitioner's behalf. The Director concluded that a direct 
comparison of these citation records with those of the Petitioner placed him somewhere in the 
middle of the field . On appeal , the Petitioner has not submitted evidence to counter the Director ' s 
finding, or that would otherwise establish that the number of citations to his published work 
demonstrates that he is at the very top of his field. 
The Petitioner's appellate brief next focuses on his work as a peer reviewer for several scholarly 
journals, and again looks to non-precedent decisions of the AAO as a guidepost. While we agree 
with the Petitioner that the quality of the judging of other's work can be more important than the 
quantity, the Petitioner has not established that either the quality or quantity of his service as a peer 
reviewer demonstrate national or international acclaim in his field. The petition includes evidence 
that the Petitioner has reviewed 16 manuscripts submitted to the following journals: 
In support of his assertion that the quality of his review work sets him apart from other researchers, 
the Petitioner refers to the letter from a lecturer at and an 
editor of Regarding the quality of the Petitioner's reviews, 
writes that "[H]e provided timely and insightful reviews of the assigned manuscripts, and his review 
service allowed the authors of the manuscripts to improve the quality of their research work prior to 
publication. [The Petitioner's] evaluations were essential to making the final decision about 
2 See https:// 
accessed on June 1, 2018, for information on varying citation rates among scientific fields. 
3 
.
Matter of F-Q-
publication." This statement does not indicate that the quality of the Petitioner's review work 
differed substantially from that of other experts who donated their time to perform this necessary 
function. The section of the journal 's website describing its peer-review policy states that "[P]eer 
review is an integral part of scientific publishing that confirms the validity of the science reported. 
Peer reviewers are experts who volunteer their time to help improve the journal manuscripts they 
review-they offer authors free advice. "3 The website also indicates that two or more reviewers 
usually review a manuscript, and that the final decision on whether to publish the article rests with 
the editorial board . The greater responsibility afforded members of an editorial board, and the 
recognition associated with such a position, is also acknowledged in the non-precedent decision 
submitted by the Petitioner, which states that "[C]redit as one of a limited number of editors affords 
name recognition and is consistent with acclaim." While the Petitioner's expertis e in materials 
science was undoubtedly essential and valuable to the peer review process for this journal and the 
others, the evidence does not demonstrate that either the quality or quantity of this work set him 
apart from his peers, or is consistent with the same level of acclaim associated with editorial board 
members of prestigious journals. 
The Petitioner also draws attention to "the many media reports highlighting his research" on appeal, 
asserting that this evidence was neglected by the Director. The evidence submitted consists mainly 
of several news releases prepared by which highlight research projects conduct ed by 
researchers at the school, projects on which the Petitioner collaborat ed as part of a research team at 
the These news releases were posted on own website, as 
well as www and www The evidence does not indicate that 
either of these websites edited the news release s or provided additional commentary on the 
importance of the projects discussed , or specifically about the Petitioner ' s role in the projects. Self­
promotion al materi als such as these carry less evidentiary weight than would an independent media 
source pro viding commentary. In addition , the mention of the Petiti oner's name as one of several 
graduate students to contribute to the research does not significantly contribute to his nation al or 
internation al acclaim, or mark him as one of the top researchers in the field of materials science. 
III. CONCLUSION 
We have reviewed all of the evidenc e of record , and find that it does not establish that the Petitioner 
is an individual of extraordinary ability consistent with sustained national or international acclaim in 
his field or a ranking as one of a small percentage at the very top of his field. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of F-Q-, ID# 1319941 (AAO July 9, 2018) 
3 See https://www , accessed on June 1, 2018. 
4