dismissed EB-1A Case: Microbial Ecology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF P-G-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 7, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a microbial ecologist, 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. 
§ ll 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 I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had satisfied only two of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, of 
which she must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief asserting that she fulfills at least three of the ten criteria. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(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 
Matter of P-G-
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate a one-time achievement (that is, a major, 
internationally recognized award). If the petitioner does not submit this evidence, then he or she must 
provide 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). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner to submit comparable 
material if he or she is able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not 
readily apply to the individual's occupation. 
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). 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 of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
At the time of filing, the Petitio1er was working as a nostdocforal research associate in the Department 
of Entomology at University of.__ _________ _,. Because the Petitioner has not indicated 
or established that she has received a major, internationally recognized award, she 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 the Petitioner met only two of the initial evidentiary criteria: judging under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and scholarly articles under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). The record reflects 
that the Petitioner served as a peer reviewer of manuscripts and authored scholarly articles in 
professional publications. Accordingly, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner fulfilled the 
judging and scholarly articles criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that she meets four additional criteria, discussed below. We have 
reviewed all of the evidence in the record and conclude that it does not support a finding that she 
satisfies the requirements of at least three criteria. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
class[fication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or _fields. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The Petitioner provided evidence indicating that she is a member of Entomological Society of America 
(ESA), Association of Women in Science, National Postdoctoral Association, and Ecological Society 
2 
Matter of P-G-
of America (ESOA) 1, but she has not demonstrated that membership in these associations required 
outstanding achievements, as judged by recognized national or international experts. For example, 
while the Petitioner offered documentation pertaining to the ESOA, including its constitution, bylaws, 
and information about its "Board of Professional Certification," this evidence is not sufficient to show 
that her "Certified Ecologist" designation required outstanding achievements. Rather, the evidence 
indicates that this ESOA certification is determined based on education, experience, and "the ability 
to perform professional work in ecology." 2 Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established that she 
meets this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien 's work in the field for which classification is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary 
translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
As evidence for this criterion, the Petitioner presented various research articles that cite to her scholarly 
works. These articles are about the authors' scientific findings and not the Petitioner. 3 Here, the 
citations to the Petitioner's work do not constitute published material about her consistent with this 
regulatory criterion. 4 She has not established therefore that she satisfies this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient[fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major sign[ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
As evidence under this criterion, the Petitioner submitted her publications and presentations, citation 
evidence for her published work, and letters of recommendation from colleagues. The Director 
considered this documentation, but found that it was not sufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner's 
1 The Petitioner received "certification at the Ecologist level" rrom the ESOA. 
2 According to ESOA's "Professional Ecologist Certifications" guidelines, the requirements for Certified Ecologist are: 
"A master's or higher degree in ecology or a related science from an accredited college or university and at least two (2) 
years of full-time equivalent professional experience after degree; OR at least five (5) years of professional experience in 
addition to the education requirement for Associate Ecologist; and [i]n addition to the I-year experience requirement for 
Associate Ecologist. candidates must also demonstrate the ability to perform professional work in ecology such as 
independent studies, complex data analyses, and publication of scientific journal articles, reports, or oral presentations 
must follow completion of the education requirement for qualification at the Ecologist level. Relevant experience should 
have been gained within the previous five (5) years." Sec https://www.esa.org/certification/guide-requirements/, copy 
incorporated into the record of proceedings. In addition, we note that ESOA's "Senior Ecologist" designation requires a 
higher level of education and professional accomplishment. 
3 For exam le the Petitioner resented an article in Frontiers in Marine Science entitled 
but this articl~e_i_s_n_o_t _a.,....b-ou_t_t..,..h_e_P_e-ti-ti-o-ne-1-· as 
~------------------------~ required by the language of 8 C.F .R. · 204.5 h 3 iii . Rather on a e 11 the aforementioned article briefl references 
her scholarly work stating: 
~---------,-----~(Pauli, 2017)." This article similarly references the scholarly works of hundreds 
of other authors. 
4 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 ADJ 1-14 7 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html (stating that the published material should be about the 
petitioner relating to her work in the field). 
3 
Matter of P-G-
work constituted original contributions of major significance in the field. For the reasons discussed 
below, we agree with that determination. 
In order to satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner must establish that not only 
has she made contributions that were original but that they have been of major significance in the 
field. For example, a petitioner may show that the contributions have been widely implemented 
throughout the field, have remarkably impacted the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major 
significance in the field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that she has presented her work at "invited symposia" and authored 
"invited articles." 5 While the Petitioner contends that these invited symposia and invited articles show 
her expertise in the field, she does not identify which of her particular research articles or presentations 
offers findings that are of major significance in the field. 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. Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Kazarian, 
596 F.3d at 1122. There is no presumption that publishing research (such as an invited review) or 
presenting work at an invited symposium represents a contribution of major significance in the field; 
rather, a petitioner must document the actual impact of her article or presentation. Here, the Petitioner 
has not sufficiently demonstrated that her published and presented work was majorly significant in the 
field. 
As one type of evidence of the impact of her work, the record includes information from Research 
Gate showing "12 citations" to her work and "Google Scholar citation metrics" reflecting 23 "citing 
articles" at the time of filing. Generally, citations can confirm that the field has taken interest in a 
researcher's work. While the Petitioner submitted various examples of articles that cited to her work, 
they do not reflect that her 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 number of citations to her work, considered both individually and 
collectively, are commensurate with contributions "of major significance in the field." 
The record also contains information about the journals that published the Petitioner's work, including 
their citation metrics and rankings. That a publication bears a high ranking is reflective of its overall 
citation rate. Ranking alone, however, does not demonstrate the influence of any particular author within 
the publication or show that an author's research has had an impact within the field. The appropriate 
analysis is to determine whether a petitioner has shown that her individual articles, factoring in 
citations and other corroborating evidence, have been considered important at a level consistent with 
original contributions of major significance in the field. Here, the Petitioner has not presented 
sufficient documentation to demonstrate that any of her published findings rise to the level of a 
contribution of major significance in her field. 
Similarly, while the Petitioner's participation in symposia such as the International Congress on 
Entomology and International Organic Geochemistry Workshop demonstrates that her findings were 
5 For example. the Petitioner provided documentation indicating that she gave an oral presentation in the International 
Workshop on C1mpound Specific Isotope Analysis of Amino Acids in the Department oflnteractive Biology atl I I In addition, the record shows that she was invited to submit an article for a special issue of Food Webs. 
4 
Matter of P-G-
shared with others and may be acknowledged as original based on their selection for presentation, she 
has not established that the selection of her work for presentation at these conferences and the requests 
for her to speak, in-and-of-themselves, show the major significance of her contributions. 
As another form of evidence under this criterion, the Petitioner contends that she provided letters from 
experts in the field who have offered testimony regarding her contributions in microbial ecolo~ 
Several of these references discussed her work involving bee-microbe interactions. For example,LJ 
I I, professor in the Department of Entomology atl !University 7, stated that the 
Pet1t10ner "was the first to apply neutral lipids analyses, a specific class of fatty acids, to detail trophic 
preferences among bees" and that her work "has shown that bees obtain a sinnificant proportion of 
their fats from fungi and bacteria, and less from pollen." While I indicated that "[t]hese 
results are both unexpected and especially noteworthy," the record does not include sufficient 
information and evidence demonstrating that this work has affected the Petitioner's field in a substantial 
way or otherwise constitutes a contribution of major significance in the field. Likewise, I I 
professor of entomology at University of1 I asserted that the Petitioner's "findings provide 
compelling evidence that microbes not only serve as mutualists, but that they form an important part 
of bee diet." I I farther noted that these "highly novel results suggest that bee survivorship is 
inextricably related to their microbial symbionts," but the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated 
that the impact of these findings rises to the level of a contribution of major significance in the field. 
With respect to the Petitioner's graduate research relating to mercury accumulation in polular game 
fish, I I professor of geological sciences at the University of I , indicated 
that the Petitioner's work "reported on previously undocumented aspects of habitat-specific foraging 
among fish populations as an underlying mechanism for mercury poisoning." I I farther 
stated that the Petitioner's "findings have developed an integrated view of food webs that include the 
function of microbial communities in pollutant cycling" and that her "results represent a major 
frameshift in mercury toxicity analysis." We recognize that research must add information to the pool 
of knowledge in some way in order to be accepted for publication, presentation, fonding, or academic 
credit, but not every finding that broadens knowledge in a particular field is tantamount to a scientific 
contribution of major significance in that field. Here, the Petitioner has not shown that her findings 
have been widely implemented or otherwise represent a scientific contribution of major significance 
in her field. 
The record includes additional recommendation letters from the Petitioner's peers. Although these 
remaining letters praise her work, they do not demonstrate how her contributions are "of major 
significance in the field." As discussed above, the Petitioner has not shown through her citation history 
or other evidence that her work, once published or presented, has been of major significance in the 
field. While the selection of the Petitioner's articles in professional journals or at conference 
proceedings verifies the originality of her work, it does not necessarily reflect that her research is 
6 While we discuss a sampling of the recommendation letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
7 The record indicates thatl lis collaboratin on a multi- ear ro·ect with the Petitioner and her coworkers at 
I I and that they coauthored an article, entitled I 1, .__ _____________________ __, 
8 The record reflects that the Petitioner received her Ph.D. in Biological Sciences from the University of~I --~lin 2015 
and tha~ I served on her disse11ation committee. 
5 
Matter of P-G-
considered of major significance. Without sufficient evidence demonstrating that her work constitutes 
original scientific contributions of major significance in the field, the Petitioner has not established 
that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role/or organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
The Petitioner contends that she has performed in a leading or critical role for ESA as a member of its 
"position statement writing team." While the Petitioner has presented documentation indicating that 
ESA has a distinguished reputation, for the reasons discussed below, the evidence is not sufficient to 
demonstrate that the Petitioner's role for that organization was leading or critical. 
For a leading role, the evidence must establish that a petitioner is or was a leader. A title, with 
appropriate matching duties, can help to establish if a role is or was, in fact, leading. 9 Regarding a 
critical role, the evidence must demonstrate that a petitioner has contributed in a way that is of 
significant importance to the outcome of the organization or establishment's activities. It is not the 
title of a petitioner's role, but rather the performance in the role that determines whether the role is or 
was critical. 10 
The record includes a September 2018 letter from~---------------~ for 
ESA, stating that the Petitioner serves as an "ESA position statement writing team member." ~ 
I lforther indicated: "Writing Committees perform a central role in drafting the Society's 
Position Statements on issues of critical importance on which more scientific education is required. 
Position statements help define the advocacy goals and advocacy boundaries for the Society, which 
enables ESA to respond consistently and quickly to rapidly changing policy developments." 
In addition, the Petitioner submitted information from the ESA's website indicating that writing 
committees are overseen by the "ESA position statements" committee, a subcommittee to the ESA 
Science Policy Committee: 
The ESA Science Policy Committee ... is charged with leading the effort to establish 
a science policy agenda for ESA that will guide and focus the Society's outreach efforts 
with governments, NGOs, and other organizations. The committee's tasks included 
developing a framework for gathering input from throughout the Society, and 
determining how actions may benefit the Society and its members. The committee 
consists of a Chair (ESA Past-President), a representative from each Section and 
Branch, one student member, two Ad hoc members, one of whom is also the Society's 
EPA-OPP Liaison .... There are two subcommittees -- one that supervises the Science 
Policy Fellows program and one that oversees the ESA position statements authoring 
and approval process (including working with the writing committees). 
The record contains farther information from ESA about its position statements, science policy writing 
committees, and the application process for volunteers seeking to serve on the position statement 
9 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 10. 
io Id. 
6 
Matter of P-G-
wntmg committee. The Petitioner, however, has not shown that her role on the position statement 
writing team is leading or critical to ESA overall. Although the letter froml I confirms the 
Petitioner's service on the ESA position statement writing team, it does not indicate that the Petitioner 
ever held a leadership position within the ESA. Further, as it relates to a critical role, the evidence is 
not sufficient to show that the Petitioner has contributed to the success or standing of ESA. While D I I contends that Petitioner rendered a "critical contribution" to the society, he did not provide 
specific examples of how her service as a writer rose to a level consistent with a critical role. The 
Petitioner did not demonstrate, for example, that her specific work has significantly influenced ESA's 
science policy agenda. For these reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that she performed in a leading 
or critical role for ESA. Accordingly, she has not established that she meets this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
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. As a result, we need not provide the type of final 
merits determination referenced in 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. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top. USCIS has long held 
that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary 
ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953,954 (Assoc. Comm'r. 1994). Here, the Petitioner 
has not shown that the significance and recognition of her work are indicative of the required sustained 
national or international acclaim or that they are consistent with a "career of acclaimed work in the 
field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has 
garnered national or international acclaim in the field, and she is one of the small percentage who has 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that she qualifies for classification 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. In visa petition proceedings, 
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 Skirball Cultural Ctr., 25 I&N Dec. 799, 806 (AAO 2012). Here, 
that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of P-G-, ID# 3752874 (AAO Aug. 7, 2019) 
7