dismissed EB-1A Case: Mathematics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF Y-L-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 27, 2017 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a mathematics professor, 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, Nebraska Service Center, denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had satisfied only two of the initial evidentiary criteria, of 
which he must meet at least three. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. With his appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and additional 
evidence. The Petitioner contends that he meets the original contributions criterion and possesses 
the required level of expertise for this classification. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states in pertinent part: 
I • 
(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, 
(b)(6)
Matter ofY-L-
(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 CF.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. USC IS, 596 F .3d 1115 (9th Cir. 201 0) (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. USCJS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011), a[f'd, 683 
F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); 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 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"). Accordingly, 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 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner was working as a visiting assistant professor of mathematics at 
The Petitioner's current resume also identifies him as an instructor of 
mathematics at the an assistant professor of mathematics at 
and a visiting assistant professor at As 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 that the Petitioner met the judging criterion under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and the scholarly articles criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). On appeal, the 
Petitioner maintains that he also meets the original contributions criterion under 8 C.F .R. 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter ofY-L-
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v). 1 We have reviewed all ofthe evidence in the record of proceedings, and it does not 
support a finding that the Petitioner meets the plain language requirements of at least three criteria. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Evidence of the alien's participation. either individually or on a panel. as a judge of 
the work of others in the. same or an allied field of spec{jication for which 
class(fication is sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
' 
The record contains evidence ret1ecting that the Petitioner has reviewed articles for scientific 
journals such as and 
Accordingly, the Director found that the Petitioner met this criterion, and 
we agree with that determination. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly. artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major sign?fzcance in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The Petitioner submitted his publications and presentations, citation evidence for his published work, 
and letters of recommendation from colleagues. The Director acknowledged the Petitioner's 
submission of the preceding evidence, but found that it was not sufficient to demonstrate that the 
Petitioner's work constituted original contributions of major significance in the fieid. 
On appeal, the Petitioner indicates that he has "authored at least 14 highly influential scholarly peer­
reviewed articles in high-ranking journals." With respect to the Petitioner's published work, the 
regulations contain a separate criterion concerning the authorship of scholarly articles in professional 
publications. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). In Kazarian v. USCJS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 
2009), the court held that publications and presentations are not sufficient evidence under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that they were of "major significance" in the field. In 2010, the 
Kazarian court reaffirmed its holding that we did not abuse its discretion in finding that the petitioner 
had not demonstrated contributions of major significance. 596 F .3d at 1122. Furthermore, there is no 
presumption that every published article or conference presentation is a contribution of major 
significance in the field; rather, the petitioner must document the actual impact of his article or 
presentation. 
As one type of evidence of the impact of his work, the Petitioner's appeal includes an August 2016 
citation summary stating that his 2011 article entitled " 
m 
1 
Although he initially offered documentation of his funding grants and student awards, the Petitioner's appeal does not 
contest the Dir~ctor's finding regarding the awards criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), nor does the record support 
a finding that he meets it. Accordingly, we will not address this criterion in our decision. 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of Y-L-
was ' 
previously provided 
Regarding the remammg articles the Petitioner has authored, he 
search results indicating ten or less citations for each. 
The Petitioner maintains that he "has a very high citation number compared to many other 
researchers in the field." In support of .his statement, he offers reports entitled ' 
and 
(2007). The first report reflects that two of the Petitioner's 
mathematics articles in were cited at a level placing 
them among the top percent of papers in their year of publication (2011 ). While the second 
report shows that articles in the field of mathematics have lower citation averages relative to articles 
in other scientific fields, its data does not indicate that any of the Petitioner's articles -published from 
2000 - 2010 had significant citation rates. The third report analyzed mathematics articles published 
during the years 2003 - 2006.3 The record, however, does not include documentation showing that 
the Petitioner published any articles in that period. Regardless, the submitted reports do not 
establish that any of the Petitioner's original mathematics findings rise to the level of contributions 
of major significance in the field. 
Generally, citations can confirm that the field has taken interest in a researcher's work. The 
Petitioner provided several examples of articles that cited to his work; however the articles 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 that a number of 
experts have offered testimony regarding his contributions of major significance. For example , 
an associate professor in the Department of Computer Science at the 
mentioned a study by the Petitioner in "in which [the Petitioner] 
applied the rope length of links and knots to enzyme action in DNA." noted that the 
Petitioner's findings "improved our understanding of DNA types and the enzymology of enzymes," 
but did not offer specific examples of how Petitioner's work has affected the biomedical industry or 
mathematics field, or has otherwise been of major significance to the field. 
With regard to the Petitioner 's study in 
of random matrices, 
concerning the singular values 
professor of electrical and computer engineering at 
stated that the Petitioner's "findings in this area are groundbreaking 
because they may lead to the generation of novel ways to recover images in an efficient way." The 
record, however, does not include documentary evidence showing that the Petitioner's work has 
2 The record reflects that at least five of the citations were self-cites by the Petitioner. While self-citation is a normal, 
expected practice , it does not show the extent to which a researcher has influenced others ' work. 
3 
For example , the report indicated that from 2003-2006 mathematics faculty members at the at 
and averaged "citations per faculty" of 59.44 and 54.48, respectively . 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter ofY-L-
already had this effect. Eligibility must be established at the time of tiling. 8 C.F .R. § 103 .2(b )(1 ), 
(12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). expectation 
regarding the possible' future impact of the Petitioner's work is not evidence of his eligibility at the 
time of filing. 
professor in the School of Computer Science at the 
indicated that his team of collaborators "cited [the Petitioner's] groundbreaking work in compressed 
sensing" and that they "consider [his] work very important." Although the Petitioner's work 
regarding the null space property for sparse recovery from multiple measurement vectors· has 
garnered a moderate number independent citations and added to the pool of knowledge in his field, 
he has not shown that his approach has affected the field in a major way, that his method has been 
widely utilized, or that his work otherwise constitutes a contribution of major significance in the field. 
In another letter, a member of the technical staff at discussed 
the Petitioner's graduate work at the He stated that the Petitioner's work 
\ 
offered "a characterization for the uniqueness of a solution to the multiple measurement vector 
problem" and that his Ph.D. thesis "contributed to the field to a degree of major significance." 
While we do not question that the Petitioner's thesis has value, in order for an institution to accept 
any research for graduation, publication, or funding, it must offer new and useful information to the 
pool of knowledge. Not every mathematician who performs original research that adds to the pool 
of knowledge has inherently made a contribution of "major significance" to the field. The record 
does not show that the Petitioner's thesis has been heavily cited, has substantially influenced the 
field, or otherwise rises to the level of an original contribution of major significance. 
associate professor of mathematics at mentioned the 
Petitioner's work on low rank approximations of linear operators in p-norms and their algorithms. 
noted that the Petitioner "developed and provided algorithms for determining solutions 
to low rank approximation problems" and that his "results can be applied, in particular, to matrix 
completion and sparse matrix recovery." However, he did not provide specific examples of how the 
Petitioner's work been widely implemented or otherwise equates to a mathematical contribution of 
major significance in the field. 
The record also contains other recommendation letters from the Petitioner's, peers. Although the 
letters praise his work, they do not explain how the Petitioner's 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 presentation at conferences. 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. Again, while the selection of the 
Petitioner's articles in professional journals or at conference proceedings verifies the originality of 
his work, it does not necessarily reflect that his research is considered of major significance. 
Ultimately, letters that repeat the regulatory language but do not explain how a petitioner's 
contributions have already influenced the field are insufficient to establish original contributions of 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter ofY-L-
major significance in the field. Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036, aff'd in part, 596 F.3d at 1115. In 2010, 
the Kazarian court reiterated that the USCIS' conclusion that the "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. The letters considered above primarily contain 
attestations of the Petitioner's status in the field without providing specific examples of how those 
contributions rise to a level consistent with major significance in the field. users need not accept 
primarily conclusory statements. 1756, Inc. v. The US. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 
1990). Without supporting evidence, the Petitioner has not met his burden of showing that he has 
made original contributions of major significance in the field. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
The Petitioner documented his authorship of scholarly articles in professional publications such as 
and Thus, the 
Director concluded that the Petitioner satisfied this criterion, and the record supports that finding. 
B. Summary 
As explained above, the record only satisfies two of the regulatory 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). Had the 
Petitioner satisfied at least three evidentiary categories, the next step would be a final merits 
determination that considers all of evidence 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. 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. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that he qualifies as an individual of extraordinary ability under 
section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act. Accordingly, he has not established eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter o.fY-L-, ID# 267078 (AAO Feb. 27, 2017) 
6