dismissed EB-1A Case: Medical Research

MATTER OF L-F-R-V-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: DEC. 10, 2018 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a researcher, 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. 
§ l l 53(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 Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had shown that he only met two of the ten initial evidentiary 
criteria, of which he must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he meets three criteria. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(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. 
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 
.
Matter of L-F-R-V-
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate a one-time achievement (that is a major, 
internationally recognized award). Alternatively, he or she must provide documentation that meets 
at least three of the ten categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items 
such as awards, memberships, and published material in certain media). 
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. USCrS, 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); Riial V. users, 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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a researcher. As he has not received a major, internationally recognized award, the 
record must demonstrate that he satisfies at least three of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)­
(x). In denying the petition, the Director found that the Petitioner met the criteria for judging under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and scholarly articles under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) but not for awards 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) or original contributions of major significance under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v). On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he meets the criteria for awards and 
original contributions of major significance. Upon reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we 
find that the record does not support a finding that the Petitioner satisfies at least three criteria. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt <~f"lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes 
or awards.for excellence in the.field o(endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3 )(i). 
The Director held that the evidence in the record did not establish that the Petitioner's receipt of 
scholarships and the 
constituted lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards for 
excellence in the field. The Director stated that the awards the Petitioner received appear to have 
been given while pursuing an education, which he noted are generally given to students or early 
career professionals in the field and not established professionals who have already achieved 
excellence in the field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that he was awarded the 2017 
for one of the 11 abstracts he presented at the 2017 
He asserts that while this award is not open to all established 
2 
.
Matter of L-F-R-V-
professionals, it is "open to more than students and early career professionals through the inclusion 
of fellows.'' the manager of education projects and junior professionals for the 
states in her letter that the Petitioner's receipt of the represents an award that "provides 
recognition for the best researchers under the minority category in science and medicine:' The 
record contains documentation from the website which states that the purpose of the 
program is "to increase representation of underrepresented minorities ... in pulmonary, critical care, 
and sleep medicine research by providing an opportunity for these trainees in U.S. based programs to 
attend the Thus, it appears that the focus of this scholarship is to 
give additional professional opportunities to trainees in the field so they can attend this international 
conference. We find that the record does not provide sufficient corroborating evidence that 
establishes this scholarship as a nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence in the 
field. The Petitioner has not addressed any other awards or scholarships on appeal. Therefore, the 
record does not establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel. as a judge o(the work 
of others in the same or an allied field ol specffication for which classification is 
sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The Director held that the Petitioner met this criterion. We agree. The Director noted that the Petitioner 
has conducted reviews for the Journal ql Re.spirat01y Care, the European Respiratory Journal, and ER.I 
Open Research which demonstrates that he meets the requirements of this criterion. 
Evidence <?l the alien ·s original scientffic. scholarly. artistic. athletic. or husiness-related 
contributions <?{major sign(ficance in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
This regulatory criterion contains multiple evidentiary elements that the Petitioner must satisfy. He 
must demonstrate that his contributions are original and scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or 
business-related in nature. The contributions must have already been realized, rather than being 
prospective possibilities. He must also establish that the contributions rise to the level of major 
significance in the field as a whole, rather than to a project or to an organization. The phrase ''major 
significance" is not superfluous and thus has meaning. See Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor 
Fund. L.P .. 51 F.3d 28, 31 (3d Cir. 1995), quoted in APWU v. Potter. 343 F.3d 619, 626 (2d Cir. 
2003). "Contributions of major significance" connotes that the petitioner's work has significantly 
impacted the field. See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134. 
The Director held that the evidence in the record does not establish the major significance of the 
Petitioner's original contributions, noting that the reference letters in the record do not demonstrate 
that his work has already amounted to contributions of major significance . On appeal. the Petitioner 
asserts that the evidence in the record demonstrates that his contributions are of major significance 
and that they have already impacted the field. He indicates that reference letters in the record 
explain how the Veterans Administration is applying his contributions in treating veterans with 
pneumonia. He specifically claims that his findings are being incorporated into pneumonia 
guidelines to help reduce the overuse of antibiotics worldwide . 
3 
.
Matter of L-F-R-V-
The record does not contain sufficient documentation to show that these guidelines have been 
implemented. In a letter from head of the pharmacotherapy division at the 
he indicates that he is "confident that the panel of expetis writing the 
current pneumonia guidelines will change their recommendations based on 
published research." This language is prospective in nature and the record does not show that the 
Petitioner's research has resulted in changes to the pneumonia guidelines. 
The Petitioner claims on appeal that the letters in the record show how his work is already having an 
effect on how patients with pneumonia are diagnosed and treated. In a letter from 
, chief of the pulmonary section of the 
he states that the Petitioner's research '·has opened 
the possibility of testing medications ... to prevent heart scarring from happening in our Veterans 
who survive pneumonia, which could improve millions oflives.'· Again, this is prospective in nature 
regarding the ''possibility" of testing medications and the record has not demonstrated how the 
Petitioner has already impacted the field. 
The Petitioner asserts that his research has been widely cited by other pneumonia researchers and 
that he continues to be cited regularly. 1 In a letter from , professor of pulmonary 
medicine at , he discusses the Petitioner's research after having 
been an expert judge of his work at the 2016 conference. notes that the 
Petitioner was invited to present his research involving his "novel animal model (i.e .. in-vivo) of 
pneumococcal pneumonia." He discusses two aspects of the Petitioner's research regarding ·'(l) the 
host-pathogen interactions" and "(2) the systemic complications that frequently affect humans with 
pneumonia." He states, "These findings provide a myriad of opportunities for researchers around the 
world." He then indicates that "[t]his in-vivo animal model will serve to test novel treatments, 
vaccines and devices to improve clinical outcomes during pneumonia.'' While the Petitioner" s 
research and his in-vivo model appear to be original contributions, he has not shown how these have 
been implemented or how they have influenced the field. "Contributions of major significance·· 
means that the petitioner's work has significantly impacted the field. See Visinscaia. 4 F. Supp. 3d at 
134. 
The Petitioner states that he submitted 11 abstracts that were accepted for presentation to the 16.000 
researchers at the 2017 international conference. The record contains a letter from 
associate professor of medicine at School of Medicine, attesting to the 
Petitioner's research that he presented at this conference, noting that he "stimulated much discussion 
during the " While presenting a t this con ference is a notable accomplishment, the 
Petitioner has not established specifically how stimul ating discussion during this conference 
amounts to contributi ons of major significance. He has not shown how the a bstracts he s ubmitted 
have impacted the field in a significant way. 
1 The Petitioner states that additional evidence of citations to his scholarly articles will be provided with a more detai led 
brief. We note that more than 30 days has passed since the fi ling of the 1-290B. Notice of Appeal or Motion, and we 
have not received additional supporting documentation. 
4 
.
Matter of L-F-R-V-
The Petitioner further states that he initiated a multi-country study of pneumonia patients in hospitals 
in 54 countries regarding the prevalence and risk factors for methicillin-resistant staphylococcus 
aureus (MRSA) known as the study.2 He claims that this study has been "widely cited and 
recognized." The record contains a report submitted with the initial filing detailing the Petitioner·s 
publications and citations, but the article that presents this study received only seven citations at that 
time. The Petitioner has not demonstrated that this level of citation is significant within his field. 
He has not shown that his research related to this study has impacted the field in a way that equates 
to contributions of major significance in the field. 
The record also contains several articles that cite the study. One example is an article from 
of the Departments of Medicine, Pediatrics, and Public Health Services at the 
, entitled, 
published at www.thelancet.com/infection. In this article, cites the study and 
ultimately concludes that further research in this area is necessary. This does not demonstrate that 
the study has significantly impacted the field. In another article discussing the 
study, , professor of medicine at notes that 
"[ u ]ltimately his research findings will prevent the development of antibiotic resistance, a health care 
problem that is now threatening our capacity to treat patients with infectious diseases:· We note that 
these articles predict a significant future impact based upon the Petitioner's work. but do not 
describe how it has already influenced the field. 
Similarly, the record also contains a letter from the head of the 
and an associate professor in respiratory 
medicine at the He states that due to this study, ''the new recommendations of 
how to treat patients with community-acquired pneumonia in the United States are changing and will 
impact millions oflives globally." We find that this evidence, like the articles citing the Petitioner"s 
work, is prospective in nature. The Petitioner has not demonstrated how his research has already led 
to changes in the ways antibiotics are used in the United States. He has not shown that his 
contributions in this regard have influenced the field in a significant manner. While we note that 
several of the supporting letters in the record attest to the potential the Petitioner's contributions 
have in the medical field, the record does not demonstrate that these contributions are already of 
major significance. 
, professor of medicine at , states in his letter that the Petitioner 
gave a presentation at the 2015 meeting in speaking about his '·research using 
Mesenchym al Stem Cells to treat pneumococcal pneumonia." H e s tates that the Petitioner' s work 
"was the first experimental evidence that these cells could modulate the severity of the disease and 
prevent patients from dying due to pneumonia ." statement tends to show that this is a 
finding that w arrants further development rather than one that i s a lready impacting the fi eld. It is 
2 The record reflects that this study was conducted on behalf of the 
investigators. 
for 
Matter of L-F-R-V-
unclear what influence this finding has had on the field at large. Thus, the record does not contain 
sufficient documentation demonstrating that this research has had a m~jor impact on the field 
equating to a contribution of major significance. 
then adds that the Petitioner 's discovery of the concentration of "heart fatty acid 
binding protein (HF ABP) was increased in the blood of patients with severe pneumonia who were 
diagnosed with adverse cardiac events." He asserts, "This is an exciting finding as it could help 
early detection of patients at risk of adverse cardiac events, allowing prompt treatment.'' Here. the 
record does not demonstrate that this has been implemented in the field. Rather. this conclusion 
appears to be prospective in nature, noting that it '·could help early detection." The evidenc e in the 
record does not demonstrate that this finding is currently helping early detection. Accordingly, the 
Petitioner has not established that he meets the requirements of this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship <?(scholarly articles in the field. in professional or mqior 
trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
The Director held that the Petitioner met this criterion an account of his articles published in the 
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care, Infection and Immunity, and Re.\pirato,y Care. 
We agree that the Petitioner meets this criterion. 
Ill . CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner is not eligible because he has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a 
qualifying 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). Thus, we do not need to fully address the totality of the materials in a 
final merits determination. 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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of L-F-R-V-, ID# 1772208 (AAO Dec. 10, 2018)