dismissed EB-1A Case: Medical Research

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF B-M-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 13,2016 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a researcher and scientist, 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 )(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. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner had satisfied only two of the regulatory criteria, of which he must meet at least three. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In his appeal, the Petitioner submits additional 
documentation and a brief stating that he meets one additional criterion. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states in pertinent part: 
(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, ' 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(b)(6)
Matter of B-M-
(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. § 2'04.5(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. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011), aff'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 
The Petitioner currently works as a researcher and scientist at the 
primarily focusing on the identification of therapeutic treatments for stroke and 
neurodegenerative diseases. 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). The Director found 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) but had not satisfied any of the other criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). On appeal, 
the Petitioner maintains that he has made original contributions of major significance under 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v) and submits additional documentation. We have reviewed all of the evidence in the 
record of proceedings, and the record does not support a finding that the Petitioner meets the plain 
language requirements of at least three criteria. 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of B-M-
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 specification for which classification is sought. 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The record of proceedings contains evidence reflecting that the Petitioner has reviewed articles for 
several journals, such as and' 
As such, the Director found that the Petitioner met this criterion, and we concur 
with that determination. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 8 C.P.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The Petitioner contends that his research in intracerebral hemorrhage, Parkinson's Disease, and 
molecular biology represents original scientific contributions of major significance and points to his 
citation history. As evidence of the significance of his work, the Petitioner submitted documentation 
showing that his published articles garnered approximately 125 total independent citations. 
Specifically, other _researchers cited the Petitioner's 
article approximately 46 times 
and his -
article approximately 3 7 times. The Petitioner's remaining articles were cited 10 times or less. 
Generally, citations confirm that the field has taken some interest in a researcher's work. A review 
of the published works citing the Petitioner's work, however, reflects that his articles were not 
singled out at as particularly important to their own work; rather they were cited as background 
information and the authors credited the Petitioner for his original findings. In this case, the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the number of his citations, considered both individually and 
collectively, is commensurate with a contribution "of major significance in the field." Again, the 
number of citations reflects that others are aware of the Petitioner's work; however he has not 
submitted sufficient materials to establish those citations rise to the level of original contributions of 
major significance in the field. 
Similarly, the Petitioner offers evidence of his presentations at various conferences, such as the 2014 
and 2015 and the 2013 
Participation in conferences demonstrates that his findings were shared with others and may 
be acknowledged as original contributions based on their selection for presentation. Although the 
Petitioner submits evidence of his best poster award at the 2015 
the record of proceedings does not show that his presentations are frequently cited by 
other researchers or have otherwise significantly impacted the field. Publications and presentations 
are not sufficient under 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that they were of "major 
significance." Kazarian v. US CIS, 580 P .3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009) aff'd iYf part 596 P .3d 1115. 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of B-M-
In 2010, the Kazarian court reaffirmed its holding that we did not abuse our discretion in our adverse 
finding relating to this criterion. 596 F.3d at 1122. 
In addition, the Petitioner contends that his work provides for designing, testing, and supporting 
important research in commercial products. The Petitioner submits screenshots from several 
companies, such as and Although the 
screenshots list some of the Petitioner's articles as references, he did not offer supporting evidence 
showing the extent of his work's contributions to their products. Moreover, the Petitioner did not 
establish 
how his research led to products that widely impacted the field, so as to demonstrate 
original contributions of major significance. See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 (upholding a 
finding that a ballroom dancer had not met this criterion because she did not corroborate her impact 
in the field as a whole). 
Further, the Petitioner submits evidence that he received a fellowship from the 
as part of his postdoctoral studies. The Petitioner did not demonstrate, however, that his 
fellowship resulted in original contributions of major significance in the field. While they may be 
prestigious, fellowships, scholarships, and other sources of competitive financial support are 
presented to students seeking to further their research, training, and experience. 
As evidence under this criterion, the Petitioner also submitted letters that described the Petitioner's 
contributions in terms of future and potential impact.1 For instance, 
professor at stated that the Petitioner's "work could lead to an important 
· breakthrough in this field," and associate professor at the 
indicated that "[t]his breakthrough should lead to a new appreciation .... " A 
petitioner cannot establish eligibility under this criterion based on the expectation of future 
significance. Given the descriptions in terms of future applicability and determinations that may 
occur at a later date, the actual impact on the field has yet to be determined. Eligibility must be 
demonstrated at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 
45,49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). 
On appeal, the Petitioner offers additional recommendation letters from his peers. Although the 
letters praise the Petitioner's work, they do not explain how the Petitioner's contributions are "of 
major significance in the field." Specifically, the letters describe the Petitioner's contributions 
without showing how . his work has significantly impacted or influenced the field, so as to 
demonstrate that he has made original contributions of major significance. Instead, the letters 
reference the importance of the Petitioner's works as indicated by their publication in professional 
journals, as well as the' citation to the Petitioner's work in their own published material. For 
instance, professor at . stated that 
based on the Petitioner's "triple-injection meth<;>d," his research group used different behavior tests 
to assess injury levels, and his findings were later published. While indicated the 
influence. of the Petitioner's work on his own research, he did not establish that the Petitioner's work 
1 We discuss only a sampling of these letters, ~ut have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of B-M-
has been ofmajor significance to the field. See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35. As discussed 
above, the Petitioner has not shown through his citation history that his contributions have been of 
major significance in the field. Again, while the selection of the Petitioner's articles in professional 
journals verifies the originality of his work, it does not necessarily reflect that his research 1s 
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 
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 USC IS' 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. Repeating the language 
of the statute or regulations does not satisfy a petitioner's burden of proof. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. 
Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr 
Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, No. 95 CIV. 10729, * 1, *5 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 18, 1997). Moreover, 
USCIS 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). 
As discussed above, the Petitioner documented his authorship of scholarly articles in professional or 
major trade 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 satisfies only 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 ofthe ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
Had the Petitioner satisfied at least three evidentiary categories, the next step would be a final merits 
determination that considers all of the filings 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 
5 
Matter of B-M-
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. 
• 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. It is the Petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of 
Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofB-M-, ID# 10861 (AAO S~pt. 13, 2016) 
6