dismissed EB-1A Case: Medical Research

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 23, 2024 In Re: 31160633 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a research associate, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that although the 
Petitioner satisfied the initial evidentiary requirements for this classification, he did not demonstrate, 
as required, that he has sustained national or international acclaim and is among that small percentage 
at the very top of his field. The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F .R. § 103 .3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(1 )(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to individuals with 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, provided that the individual seeks to enter the United States to continue 
work in the area of extraordinary ability, and the individual'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 
international recognition of their 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 they 
must provide sufficient qualifying documentation they meet at least three of the ten criteria listed at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items such as awards, published material in certain media, 
and authorship of scholarly articles). 
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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The 
Petitioner earned a postdoctoral degree in pathology in China. When he entered the United States 
in 2019, he conducted research at the Iand later joined 
as a postdoctoral fellow. Currently, the Petitioner stated he is a research associate conducting research 
in Dr. I I laboratory, who is an associate professor in the department of pathology at
I J The Petitioner explained he is a "well-
established scientist with strong expertise in molecular biology, cell biology and medical research." 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner met the initial evidentiary requirements of documenting he 
satisfied at least three of the ten criteria listed under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 1 Specifically, the 
Director found that the Petitioner offered evidence of his participation as a judge of the work of others, 
his authorship of scholarly articles in the field in professional publications, and his original scientific 
contributions of major significance in the field. Thus, the Director determined that the Petitioner 
satisfied the three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(iv)-(vi). 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the Petitioner submitted the reqms1te initial evidence, we will evaluate whether he has 
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, his sustained national or international claim, that 
he is one of the small percentage at the very top of his endeavor, and that his achievements have been 
recognized in the field through extensive documentation. In a final merits determination, we analyze 
a petitioner's accomplishments and weigh the totality of the evidence to determine if those 
achievements are sufficient to demonstrate their extraordinary ability in the field of endeavor. See 
section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 
While the Petitioner has offered documentation satisfying three of the ten initial evidence criteria, two 
of these criteria involve activities that appear to be routine among research scientists. The Petitioner's 
co-authorship and first authorship of scholarly articles meets the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 
1 The Director concluded that the evidence did not show the Petitioner had received a one-time achievement (that is. a 
major, internationally recognized award) discussed under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). On appeal, the Petitioner does not 
challenge this finding. 
2 
204.5(h)(3)(vi), and his peer review of other scientists' manuscripts constitutes judging the work of 
others under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). The Director also concluded that the Petitioner has made 
original scientific contributions of major significance in his field. This evidence reflects that he is an 
accomplished researcher in his field. The record, however, does not contain evidence sufficient to 
show that he has risen to the very top of his field and has sustained national or international acclaim. 
We agree with the Director's determination that participation in the peer review process does not 
automatically support a conclusion that a researcher has achieved the recognition required for this 
classification. 
As relating to his service as a manuscript reviewer, we must evaluate the significance of his experience 
to determine if such evidence indicates the required level of acclaim and recognition for this highly 
restrictive classification. See Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1121-22.2 The Petitioner provided evidence of 
his service as a peer reviewer for several professional journals, including the following: Annals of 
Medicine, Journal of Leukocyte Biology, Open Medicine, BMC Bioinformatics, BioMed Research 
International, Frontiers in Immunology, Heliyon, Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy, International 
Immunopharmacology, Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology, Gene Reports, Functional & 
Integrative Genomics, Discover Oncology, PeerJ Computer Science, and Frontiers in Pharmacology. 
The Petitioner claims he is distinguished from other researchers since he reviewed research 
manuscripts for 15 important international journals. Although the Petitioner indicated these journals 
as "important," he did not provide sufficient documentation regarding all the journals and the actual 
importance of them in his field of research. 
In response to the Director's notice of intent to deny, (NOID), the Petitioner submitted letters from 
three editors of three different journals explaining the process in selecting a peer reviewer. The editor­
in-chief of stated that she called on the Petitioner as a peer reviewer 
since he is an "expert in the field of immunology." The associate editor of the 
stated that "only scientists who have established an international 
reputation of excellence in the selected area of research are considered as potential reviewers." The 
editorial assistant for the stated that the Petitioner's appointment 
as a reviewer is a "reflection of his exceptional qualifications, marked by outstanding research 
accomplishments and an expanding international reputation." The Petitioner only submitted evidence 
of the peer review selection process of three of the journals for which he provided peer review services. 
As noted, one editor indicated that the Petitioner was selected for his international reputation of 
excellence while the other two editors indicated his selection because he is an "expert" and he has 
"expanding international reputation." Without sufficient evidence that sets the Petitioner apart from 
other researchers who are called on to perform peer review services in his field, he has not provided 
sufficient context to demonstrate that the nature and scope of his peer review work is indicative of his 
sustained national or international acclaim or indicative of a "career of acclaimed work in the field" 
as contemplated by Congress. See H.R. Rep. No. at 59 and section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. 
2 See also 6 USC1S Policy Manual, supra, at F.2 (stating that an individual's participation should be evaluated to determine 
whether it was indicative of being one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor and 
enjoying sustained national or international acclaim). 
3 
Likewise, publication of research does not automatically place a researcher or professor at the top of 
their field. Here, the Petitioner submitted his Google Scholar profile showing that he published 14 
research articles ( 4 first authored and 10 co-authored). As authoring scholarly articles is often inherent 
to the work of scientists, researchers and academics, the citation history or other evidence of the 
influence of his articles can be an indicator to determine the recognition that his work has had on the 
field and whether such recognition or influence has been sustained. For example, numerous 
independent citations of the Petitioner's work may provide solid evidence that his work has been 
recognized and that other researchers have been influenced by his work. Such an analysis at the final 
merits determination stage is appropriate pursuant to Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1122. The Petitioner also 
stated that although his three most cited papers were co-authored, he also received citations for his 
first-author papers. The Petitioner did not provide evidence differentiating his publication rate from 
those of others in his field, or otherwise establish that it is reflective of one who is among the small 
percentage at the very top of his field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
Here, the record indicates that, as of October 2023, the Petitioner's body of published work received 
960 total citations, with 893 citations since 2018. The Petitioner's most-cited articles was an article 
from 2017 (173 citations) and two articles from 2016 (123 and 103 citations). The evidence reveals 
that articles that the Petitioner authored alone have not received the same level of attention in the field 
as articles where he co-authored. For example, the google scholar printout notes that the Petitioner 
first author article that garnered the most citations was published in 2018 and it received 98 citations. 
The Petitioner's citations, both individually and collectively, show that his work has received some 
recognition in his field. However, he did not provide evidence demonstrating that the total rate of 
citations to his body of published work is high relative to others in the field or that the citations to his 
research represent attention at a level consistent with being among small percentage at the very top of 
his field. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(8)(2) (stating that depending on the 
field and the comparative data a petitioner provides, such evidence may indicate a person's high 
overall standing in a given field). 
The Petitioner also stated that his most recent article, the final version of which was published in 2023, 
appeared in the Journal of Clinical Investigation, and that journal was ranked by Altmetric in the top 
5% of all research outputs. The Petitioner submitted evidence regarding the attention score assigned 
by Altmetric to the Petitioner's paper published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation. According 
to the Altmetric website, it appears that these scores are calculated based on online attention derived 
from social media and mainstream news media. 3 According to its website, the attention scores 
reflected in the Altmetric data provided by the Petitioner are garnered in large part by mentions in 
various social media platforms such as news articles, blogs, Wikipedia, and other social media sites. 
It is important to point out that while Wikipedia is not the sole source used for score compilation, it 
nevertheless is highlighted as a significant source of data, and there are no assurances about the 
reliability of the content from Wikipedia, an open, user-edited internet site. 4 See Lamilem Badasa v. 
3 See https://help. altmetric. com/support/solutionslarticles/60002 3 3 311-how-is-the-altmetric-attention-score-calculated­
?_gl= 1*1tqnab 7*_ga *MTI1 NjM2Mjg2Mi4xNzE2MzE0NDA 1*_ga_CHDNWH4YDX*MTcxNj QwNTMwMS4yLjEuMTcx 
N)QwNTMyOS4wLJAuMA. (last visited May 23, 2024). 
4 Online content from Wikipedia is subject to the following general disclaimer, "WTKTPEDTA MAKES NO GUARANTEE 
OF VALTDTTY. Wikipedia is an online open-content collaborative encyclopedia; that is, a voluntary association of 
individuals and groups working to develop a common resource of human knowledge. The structure of the project allows 
4 
Michael Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909 (8th Cir. 2008). Here, the Petitioner does not explain or demonstrate 
that even very high attention in social media and mainstream news media is indicative of the subject 
research being of major significance to other scientists. 
Therefore, while the Petitioner's citation record and the inclusion of his article in the Journal of 
Clinical Investigation may be noteworthy, he did not demonstrate that his overall publication record 
demonstrates the required sustained national or international acclaim for this classification or reflects 
that he has reached the very top of his field of endeavor. See section 203(b )(l)(A) of the Act. 
With respect to the Petitioner's research activities, the Director observed that he had made original 
contributions to the field. However, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his contributions are of 
major significance to the field or that such contributions resulted in the Petitioner "having achieved 
sustained acclaim as one of the very top of the field of endeavor." The Petitioner does not directly 
address this determination on appeal. 
The Petitioner has shown that his work was valuable but the evidence, considered individually and 
collectively, does not establish that his contributions have been recognized at a level that elevates him 
to the top of his field or that they have resulted in his sustained national or international acclaim. In 
general, the letters recount the Petitioner's research and findings, indicate their publications in 
journals, and point to the citations of his work by others. Although they reflect the novelty of his 
work, they do not sufficiently articulate how his research and findings have been considered of such 
importance and how their impact on the field rises to the level of major significance required by this 
criterion. 5 
For example, a letter from Dr. I I an associate professor in the department of medicine, director 
of the MD-PhD program, and senior associate dean for MD-PhD education at the I I I Istates that he is personally familiar with the Petitioner's work, and indicated 
that the Petitioner and "his colleagues" researched hypertension and inflammation and that their 
research provides "compelling evidence" of a medical link that can suggest a potential therapeutic 
strategy for the treatment of hypertension. Here, the author repeatedly asserts the research was 
performed by the Petitioner and his colleagues but does not further elaborate on how the Petitioner's 
achievements have been recognized at a level that places him at the very top of the field. 
The additional reference letters all discuss the Petitioner's research findings and that they contributed 
to the medical research community. Some authors of the reference letters also indicated that they 
referenced his research in their own work. While the Petitioner has earned significant praise from 
scientists in his field, the solicited letters do not provide sufficient information and explanation, nor 
does the record include sufficient corroborating evidence, to show that the Petitioner's contributions 
in the medical field, primarily conducted while he was completing his graduate studies, have resulted 
anyone with an Internet connection to alter its content. Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been 
reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable infonnation. That is not 
to say that you will not find valuable and accurate information in Wikipedia; much of the time you will. However, 
Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here. The content of any given article may recently have 
been changed, vandalized, or altered by someone whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the 
relevant fields." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer (last visited May 23, 2024). 
5 While we discuss a sampling of letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
5 
in his sustained national or international acclaim and that he is more broadly recognized as being 
among that small percentage at the very top of his field of endeavor. 
The record, including the evidence discussed above, does not establish the Petitioner's eligibility for 
the benefit sought. The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals 
at the top of their respective fields. USCIS has long held that even athletes performing at the major 
league level do not automatically meet the statutory standards for classification as an individual of 
"extraordinary ability." Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). While the 
Petitioner need not establish that there is no one more accomplished to qualify for the classification 
sought, the record does not indicate a degree of recognition consistent with the sustained acclaim that 
the statute demands. See section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(2). Based on this 
finding, we need not consider the separate question of whether his entry would substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 6 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility 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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required 
to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516, 526 
n.7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
6