dismissed EB-1A Case: Medical Research

MATTER OF V-S-P-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN. 30, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
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. 
§ 1 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the Form 1-140, 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 submits additional eviden~e and contends that he meets three criteria. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Sectjon 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, mis, 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 ofthe 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 V-S-P-
requirements. First, a petltloner 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. USC!S, 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 l&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a researcher at the School of Medicine in 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 original contributions of major 
significance under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he meets the 
criterion for 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. 
Evidence o.f the alien ·s participation. either individually or on a panel. as a judge o.f the work 
of others in the same or an allied field <~f specfficalion for which class~fication is 
sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The Director held that the Petitioner met this criterion. The record reflects that the Petitioner has 
conducted reviews for the following journals Neuropsychiatrk -Disease and Treatment, Advances in 
Genomics and Genetics, and other journals. Therefore, the Petitioner has established that he meets the 
requirements of this criterion. 
2 
.
Matter of V-S-P-
Evidence of the alien's original scientffic, scholarly. artistic. athletic. or business-related 
contributions of major signffzcance 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. LP .. 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 letters from professors and researchers that were submitted with the initial 
petition and in response to the request for evidence (RFE) did not establish the major significance of 
the Petitioner 's original contributions in the field to meet this criterion . On appeal, the Petitioner 
asserts that this evidence establishes that he was the first to discover the relationship of the 
gene in preventing congenital heart disease and its effects in wound healing and neurologica) 
disorders. He also states that he was "the first to establish the relationship between mutations 
and the pathogenesis of autosomal recessive primary microcephaly, a debilitating brain condition in 
infants." We will address each of these points below. 1 
Regarding the letters from the professors and researchers in the record , an agency "may, in its 
discretion, use as advisory opinions statements . .. submitted in evidence as expert testimony," but it 
is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an individual's eligibility for 
the benefit sought. Matter of Caron Int 'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791 , 795 (Comm'r 1988). 
In support of the the Petitioner's research on the gene, the record contains a letter from 
an assistant professor at who states that "[the Petitioner's] 
work was the first to show and its molecular role in neurological disorders." 
then indicates, "Further research is needed to determine the exact impact this protein has on the 
progression of neural disorders , but [the Petitioner's] work is an important first step to understand 
the pathophysiology of these diseases." adds, "The increasing incidence of 
neurodegenerative disorders means that the need to find a treatment or a cure, of which there are 
1 Counsel for the Petitioner states that the Director "denied the major significance of [the Petitioner's] work on the basis 
of a semantic distinction that is neither found in the regulatory language nor inherent to the concept of major 
significance." Specifically, the Petitioner refers to the Director's use of the terms "impact" and "importance" as used in 
an article the Petitioner submitted from the journal Scientometrics . See Lutz Bornmann and Werner Marx, "How to 
evaluate individual researchers working in the natural and life sciences meaningfully? A proposal of methods based on 
percentiles of citations. " 98 Scientometri cs 496(2014). While we acknowledge the authors ' use of these terms in their 
scholarly discussion on evaluating researchers, the focus here is on whether the Petitioner's contributions are of major 
significance in the field under 8 C.F .R. § 204 .5(h)(3)(v). See Visinscaia, supra, ("Contributions of major significance " 
mean that the Petitioner ' s work has significantly impacted the field) . 
3 
.
Matter of V-S-P-
none, is becoming more urgent." She then asserts that "his work represents a vital step in advancing 
our understanding of these conditions and eventually finding ways to treat them." Here, the letter 
attests to the originality of the Petitioner's contribution, but speaks prospectively of its impact, 
indicating that the Petitioner's research on has not yet been of major significance to the field. 
Other letters in the record also discuss the Petitioner 's research on 2 For example , 
professor of pharmacology at the , . states that the Petitioner 
"concluded that is essential for normal cardiac function, and the deficiency of this protein 
leads to dilated cardiomyopathy and other cardiac issues, making this protein and the mutant mice 
that he created important tools for investigating new treatments for cardiovascular diseases." 
associate professor at the states in his letter 
that the Petitioner "found that plays an important role in neuronal development in the brain" 
and that it is "abundantly expressed in the skin during wound healing." Letters that specifically 
articulate how an individual's contributions are of major significance to the field and its impact on 
subsequent work add value , while those that lack specifics and simply use hyperbolic language do 
not add value and are not considered to be probative evidence that may form the basis for meeting 
this criterion. 3 While these letters indicate that he has provided additional knowledge about 
the record does not demonstrate in specific detail how the Petitioner's work has been implemented 
such to show that it has significantly impacted the field. 
professor emeritus at the in Germany, indicates in her 
letter that the Petitioner ' s research articles on "have been cited more than 80 times by many 
leading researchers in the field ." However, the fact that the Petitioner has published articles that 
other researchers have referenced is not, by itself, indicative of a contribution of major significance . 
Publications are not sufficient under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that they were of 
"major significance." See Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d l 030, l 036 (9th Cir. 2009), a.ff'd in part, 
596 F.3d 1115. As noted by the Director, the goal of all researcl1 is "to be pioneering and 
innovative," or in other words, to advance the understanding of the topics of research. Although 
these citations show that his research has received some attention from the field, the Petitioner has 
not shown that the number of citations to his individual papers is indicative of significant influence 
within the field. 
The record contains a letter from assistant professor at who 
provides prenatal and preconception genetic counseling to patients and has reached out to the 
Petitioner on behalf of patients in her clinic. The record also contains a letter from an 
assistant professor of medicine in the division of cardiology at the 
who states that based on the Petitioner's research she began having her patients screened 
for genetic mutations and then studying their gene. While these are examples of how the 
2 Although we may not discuss every letter in the record, all were reviewed and considered in reaching our conclusion. 
3 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 
Petitions; Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADI 1-14 6 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html. · 
4 
.
Matter of V-S-P-
/ 
Petitioner has provided guidance to clinical practitioners, the record does not establish that assisting 
two individuals and their patients equates to a contribution of major significance to the whole field. 
In a letter from vice dean for innovation and development at the 
College of Medicine, she discusses a book chapter she wrote focusing on the structure and 
function of the human heart. She states that she ''extensively discussed the implications and 
significance of [the Petitioner's] findings regarding the molecular functions of in terms of 
disease-causing mutations. " The Petitioner has not shown that this book is widely used in the field 
or other evidence demonstrating that the inclusion of his work in this text indicates it is of major 
significance to the field. 
The Petitioner also contends that his research on mutations constitutes an original 
contribution of major significance. states that "[the Petitioner] and his colleagues 
studied a consanguineous eight generation family that had ten microcephalic children" and that he 
identified a mutation that was the "causal variant for [microcephaly]." The Petitioner notes 
four examples of other researchers who have cited his published findings and notes that his article 
discussing has been cited 63 times. He submits a graph from Microsoft Research which 
ranks the impact and productivity of his publications, but this is of limited probative value as the 
record does not demonstrate who compiled this report and where the data in the graph originated. 
The record also contains information from Google Scholar listing the citations for each of his 
publications and data from Clarivate Analytics which indicates that this article on mutations 
· ranks among the top ten percent most cited articles for 2013. While we note that this is the 
Petitioner's most cited article, he has not established that this citation rate shows that his work has 
been widely implemented in the field. Citations to a petitioner ' s publications do not alone equate to 
contribution of major significance. See Kazarian. 580 F.3d at 1036 (9th Cir. 2009), a.ff'd in part. 596 
F.3d 1115 (publications are not sufficient under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that they 
are of "major significance" in the field). Although these citations show that his research has 
received attention from the field, the Petitioner has not shown that the number of citations to his 
irydividual papers is indicative of significant influence in the field. The Petitioner has not otherwise 
shown the impact that his research on mutations has had in the field. "Contributions of major 
significance" connotes that the petitioner's work has significantly impacted the field. See 
Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134. 
The Petitioner notes that his findings have been incorporated into medical diagnostic guidelines, but 
the record contains only a single genetics test that references his research. He has not shown that _ 
medical diagnostic guidelines in the field at large have incorporated his research. He also cites a 
summary of a book published by GeneReviews/ which contains the research of and 
others , indicating that microcephaly disorders are associated with gene mutations, including 
but the Petitioner has not shown that these researchers cite his work or that this book has been of 
4 The record contains a summary of GeneReviews which states that it is "an international point-of-care resource for busy 
clinicians." See www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK 1116/. 
5 
Matter of V-S-P-
major significance to the field. Therefore, the Petitioner has not established that his research 
constitutes original contributions of major significance in the field to meet this criterion. · 
Evidence of the alien ·s authorship <~[ 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 Director held that the Petitioner met this criterion an account of his articles published in the 
following journals: Human Molecular Genetics, Cellular and Molecular L[fe Sciences, and Nucleic 
Acids Research, among others. Thus, the Petitioner has established that he meets this criterion. 
III. 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 V-S-P-, ID# 1940214 (AAO Jan. 30, 2019)