dismissed EB-1A Case: Molecular And Cellular Biology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 13 1415 05 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 15, 2021 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a molecular and cellular biologist and a postdoctoral fellow at the University of 
.__ ________ _, 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 extraordinazy 
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 the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Petitioner had satisfied at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria 
for this classification. We dismissed the Petitioner's subsequent appeal after reaching the same 
conclusion. The matter is now before us on a combined motion to reopen and motion to reconsider. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361 . Upon review, we will dismiss both motions. 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). A motion to reconsider must (1) state the reasons for reconsideration and establish that 
the decision was based on an incorrectapplicationoflaw or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS) policy, and (2) establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record 
of proceedings at the time of the initial decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3) . 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) limits our authority to reopen or reconsider to instances 
where the Petitioner has shown "proper cause" for that action. Thus, to merit reconsideration, a 
petitioner must not only meet the formal filing requirements (such as submission of a properly 
completed Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with the correct fee), but also show proper cause 
for granting the motion. We cannot grant a motion that does not meet applicable requirements. See 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
II. 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. 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 fmih a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner 
can demonstrate sustained acclaim and the recognition of their 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 they must provide sufficient qualifying 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). 
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). 
III. ANALYSIS 
The issue in this matter is whether the Petitioner has submitted new facts supported by documentaty 
evidence sufficient to warrant reopening her appeal and/or established that our decision to dismiss the 
appeal was based on an incorrect application oflaw or USCIS policy. 
A. Prior AAO Decision 
In our decision dismissing the Petitioner's appeal, we determined that she satisfied two of the ten 
initial evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), includingjudging the work of others in her 
field at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and authorship of scholarly articles at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
We also addressed the Petitioner's claims that she satisfied the criteria relating to published materials 
about her, original contributions of major significance, and leading or critical roles at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii), (v) and (viii), respectively, and determined that the evidence did not satisfy any of 
these criteria. 
Because we concluded that the Petitioner did not meet the initial evidence requirements, we did not 
provide the type of final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596, F.3d at 1119-20. 
Neve1iheless, we advised that after a review of the record in the aggregate, the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate that she has earned sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor, as required by section 203(b)(l )(A) 
of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
2 
B. Motion to Reopen 
As noted, a motion to reopen must state the new facts to be provided in the reopened proceeding and 
be supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103 .5 ( a )(2). Here, the Petitioner 
does not raise new facts in her brief and the only new evidence she submits on motion is her updated 
Google Scholar profile dated July 2020, approximately 16 months after the filing of the petition. 
Although a motion to reopen allows the submissionofnew evidence related to eligibility, the Petitioner 
must still establish that all eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have been satisfied from 
the time of the filing and continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103 .2(b )(1 ). Accordingly, 1he 
updated Google Scholar profile does not present new facts that warrant the reopening of this matter 
and the motion to reopen will be dismissed. 
C. Motion to Reconsider 
The Petitioner's motion to reconsider focuses on our determination that she did not satisfy the original 
contributions criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 1 She asserts that we failed to apply the 
preponderance of the evidence standard in our adjudication, misapplied and misconstrued case law, 
and failed to consider all of the relevant evidence submitted in support of the criterion. 
1. Original Contributions of Major Significance 
The Petitioner maintains that she has made several original contributions of major significance in her 
field as evidenced by her publication in top ranked journals, citations to her published work, 
testimonial letters from experts in her field, and her co-invention of a patented! I 
support system. 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 original contributions but that they have been of major 
significance in the field.2 For example, a petitioner may show that the contributions have been widely 
implemented throughoutthe fie Id, have remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or have otherwise 
risen to a level of major significance in the field. 
Before proceeding to a discussion of why we are granting this criterion in this motion, we will address 
the Petitioner's claim that we inappropriately disregarded or gave less weight to expert testimony in 
the record based on an observation that the expert opinion letters, "although not identically worded" 
contain similarities "consistent with common origin or at least significant coaching in the 
composition." We noted that "USCIS may give letters diminished weight when there is evidence of 
common origin," citingSurinderSingh v. BIA, 438 F.3d 145, 148 (2d Cir. 2006) (upholding an adverse 
credibility determination in asylum proceedings based in paii on the similarity of the affidavits). The 
Petitioner maintains that the Second Circuit's holding in Singh does not support giving "diminished 
1 Although herbriefonmotion primarily focusesonheroriginalcontributions, the Petitioner states that she is not conceding 
the leading or critical roles criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) and requests that we review the previous arguments 
submitted on appeal. 
2 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form T-140Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADl 1-14 8-9 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTMUPolicyManual.html (finding that although funded and published w01k may 
be "original," this fact alone is not sufficientto establish that the work is of major significance). 
3 
weight" to uncontradicted expert testimony in an immigrant petition proceeding and was thus 
inappropriately cited. The Petitioner also emphasizes that there are valid reasons for such letters to 
have similarities in format, organization, and phrasing and that such similarities did not provide 
sufficient basis to doubt the credibility or probative value of the letters. 
Our discussion of the expert testimony in the appellate decision reflects that we did in fact give 
significant evidentiary weight to the submitted testimonial letters. For example, we began our analysis 
of the original contributions criterion with a discussion of the substantive content of this evidence and 
~orated quotations from the letters o_._.._ ________ l l I I 
L__J andl I We acknowledged that their letters were highly specific in describing the 
technical aspects of the Petitioner's original scientific research. However, we determined that the 
letters did not satisfy the Petitioner's burden to show the major significance of her contributions 
because they either did not elaborate with similar specificity on the impact or influence of herresearch 
in the field, or because, in the case of I ts letter, they focused on "pending research with the 
not-yet-fulfilled potential to have an impact on medical research and treatment." Accordingly, we 
concluded that "the letters do not adequately explain how the Petitioner's specific contributions are of 
major significance." We also stated: 
We do not question the competence of the various individuals to attest to technical 
details of the Petitioner's work. But it cannot suffice to describe that work and then 
assert that it is of major significance, either with no elaboration or with the contention 
that it will eventually lead to new treatments or methods that have yet to be discovered. 
Based on the foregoing, our analysis does not reflect that we gave "diminished weight" to the expert 
testimony and our conclusion that the Petitioner did not meet this criterion did not hinge on a 
determination that the letters had a "common origin." That discussion, and the supporting citation to 
Singh, were intended to address the Petitioner's claim that the Director's initial decision had 
misapplied Matter of Caron Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791 (Comm'r 1988), by seemingly disregarding the 
Petitioner's expert opinion letters, and had "cited no basis for giving the letters diminished weight." 
After consideration of the Petitioner's explanation on motion and fmiher review of the expert 
testimonial letters, we agree with the Petitioner that any perceived similarities in those letters did not 
warrant a determination that the letters had a '·common origin" or the reference to Singh. Further, we 
affirm that we do not have reason to doubt the credibility of the individuals who provided letters in 
support of this petition. 
The Petitioner also argues that we erred in our evaluation of the original contributions criterion by 
overlooking or failing to address evidence that corroborates the expert opinion testimony, emphasizing 
that she submitted more than sufficient documentation to meet the re onderance of the evidence 
standard. She s ecificall hi li ts her article 
~------.-------~-------' published in Molecular Cell in 2012 and her 
development of a~-----~ support system (which resulted in a publication in Biotechnology 
and Bioengineering and a Chinese patent) as her "two most important works." 
With respect to the Chinese patent for a 1 f support system and combined type liquid 
storage tank," we determined that the issuance of a patent attests to the invention's originality but not 
4 
to its significance. We observed that the record did not contain evidence that the patented invention 
is "in use or in commercial production" and concluded that there was "no documentary evidence to 
establish that her role in the invention constitutes a contribution of major significance." On appeaL 
the Petitioner emphasizes that she submitted a letter from an executive of a Chinese company which 
acknowledges thr the 
1
atent "was being used and saving lives, and that company was gearing up for 
production ofhe upport systems to be sold on the market." 
The record reflects that, in res onse to a re uest for evidence RFE , the Petitioner submitted an 
undated letter, attributed toL_ __ .r-----, _________ _J, certifying that, in 2011, this 
company purchased the patent fro~~,._ __ ____,University. According to the letter, "[t]he patent is now 
being optimized for production and commercially developed for clinical applications." The letter 
further states that the patented technology, "improves the substance exchange efficiency and the 
treatment effect of~ I support system," "is imperative in advancing new treatments 
for patients," and is "financially significant"to the company. We disagree thatthis briefletterprovides 
sufficient information to document that the patented technology was already being used to treat 
patients. Rather, it indicates that the invention is still being "developed for clinical applications." The 
letter is undated and is not accompanied by evidence that the patented invention was in use at the time 
of filing. 
We acknowledge thatj lo~ !university describes the Petitioner's research 
related to the patent in his letter. He states that it was published in Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 
"one of the top journals in the bioengineering field" and had been cited 3 8 times. However, he does 
not further discuss the impact or the influence of the published research, mention the patent assijed 
tol !University or the purchase of that patent byl O _ or 
otherwise provide support for the Petitioner's claim that the patented technology is "being used and 
saving lives." 
While the Petitioner has not established that she satisfies this criterion based on her patent, we 
conclude, based on her arguments on motion, that she submitted sufficient evidence to establish that 
she meets this criterion based on the research she published in Molecular Cell in 2012. The Petitioner 
maintains that we did not consider all testimonial evidence that discusses this work and her 
contributions to the study, evidence demonstrating that this is the Petitioner's most cited work, and 
evidence that other researchers have relied on and built upon this research. Further, the record contains 
evidence that the Petitioner's discovery and resulting Molecular Cell aiiicle were reported by U.S. 
science news publications including Science Signaling and Science Daily, as well as in Chinese media 
outlets. When considered collectively, the Petitioner has provided sufficient detail to establish, by a 
preponderance of the evidence, the nature and significance of her contribution to this research. 
Because the Petitioner has now demonstrated that she satisfies three of the initial evidentiary criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), we will evaluate the totality of the evidence in the context of the final 
merits determination below. 
2. Final Merits Determination 
As the Petitioner submitted the requisite initial evidence, we will evaluate whether she has 
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, her sustained national or international acclaim and 
5 
I 
that she is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor , and that her 
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 their successes are sufficient to demonstrate that they have extraordinary ability in the 
field of endeavor. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2),(3); see also 
Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 3 In this matter, we determine that the Petitioner has not established 
her eligibility. 
The record reflects that the Petitioner received her bachelor's degree atc=J University of Science 
and Technology, her master's degree in biochejistry anl molecular biology froml I University 
and her doctorate degree in internal medicine at University in 2014. She provided evidence 
that she received several academic honors and scholarships from these institutions , as well as a national 
scholarship for graduate students awarded by China's Ministry of Education. The Petitioner 
completed her first postdoctoral fellowship at the Cancer Biology Department of City of Hope 
I ! in Califomi~een 2014 and 2017. As of the date of filing, she had been, 
employed as a postdoctoral fellow aL._J since 2018 in the Department of Molecular Biology and 
Chemisj, where her research was focused onl I 
As mentioned above, the Petitioner has provided evidence that she has judged the work of others 
through the peerreview process, authored scholarly articles, and made original scientific contributions 
in her field. The record, however, does not demonstrate that her achievements are reflective of a 
"career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep . No. 101-723, 59 
(Sept. 19, 1990) . 
Relating to the Petitioner's service as a judge of the work of others, an evaluation of the significance 
of her experience is appropriate to determine if such evidence indicates the required extraordinmy 
ability for this highly restrictive classification. See Kazarian, 5 96 F. 3d at 1121-22. 4 Participation in 
the peer review process does not automatically demonstrate that an individual has the sustained 
national or international acclaim required for this classification . The record reflects that, as of the date 
of filing, the Petitioner had completed 13 manuscript reviews for Biomedicine and Pharmacotherapy, 
as well as 8 reviews for Cancer Letters , and 7 reviews for Nutrients, with the earliest review completed 
in April 2018 . The Petitioner also submitted a "Peer Review Summary" prepared by Publons 
(publons.com) stating that her 28 reviews placed her "in the 91 st percentile for verified review 
contributions on Publons up until February 2019." 5 
However, the "Peer Review Summary" from Publons .com does not provide enough infonnation to 
substantiate the Petitioner's claim that her number of completed manuscript reviews places her among 
3 See also USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.l ,supra, at 4 (statingthatUSCIS officers should then evaluate the 
evidence together when considering the petition in its entirety to determine if the petitioner has established, by a 
preponderance of the evidence, the required high level of expeitise for the immigrant classification) . 
4 See also Id. at 13 (stating that an individual's participation as a judge 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) . 
5 In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner provided an updated summary from Pub Ions indicating that she had 
performed! I July 2019, "placing in the 94th percentile for verified review 
contributions on Publons ." 
6 
the small percentage at the very top of her field; it does not indicate how Publons derives its rankings, 
whether its statistics are based on self-reported information rath er than derived from an impartial 
source , and how its statistics relate to the field as a whole. For these reasons, the reports from Publons 
do not demonstrate how the Petitioner's participation in the peer review process sets her apart from 
others in her field. 
Based the evidence submitted , we can conclude that three scientific journals have frequently invited 
her to review articles in the 18 months preceding the filing of the petition and continue to do so. The 
record does not reflect, however, that this recent experience reflects a consistent history of 
participating as a peer reviewer that would contribute to a finding that she has a "career of acclaimed 
work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101- 723 at 59. 
Further, the evidence does not document , for example, the selection criteria used by the journals to 
identify potential peer reviewers or otherwise reflect that invitations to review manuscripts for 
Biomedicine and Pharmacotherapy, Cancer Letters, or Nutrients are only issued to top researchers 
who have achieved national or international acclaim. The record contains little information regarding 
these journals, such as their relative ranking among journals in the Petitioner's field. Overall, while 
we acknowledge the significant volume of recent requests the Petitioner has received to review 
manuscripts for three journals, the evidence does not establish that the scope of these peer review 
activities requires or reflects acclaim in the field, that it has resulted in her sustained acclaim, or that 
the nature of the peer review work she has performed to date is indicative of her placement among that 
small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) . 
Likewise, publication of scientific research alone does not place a researcher at the very top of the 
field. At the time of filing, the Petitioner provided her Google Scholar profile reflecting that she had 
published 20 articles in professional journals and conference proceedings between 2009 and 2019, 15 
of which had been cited by others. In support of her claim that her publication record is indicative of 
her placement at the top of the field, the Petitioner places particular emphasis on the ranking or impact 
factor of certain journals that published her work, her cumulative number of citations, and the number 
of citations garnered by some of her individual publications. 
We acknowledge that the Petitioner has published articles in Nature and Cell publications, including 
Nature Cell Biology , Nature Communications, Molecular Cell and Cell Reports, as well as in other 
highly ranked publications. 6 Publication in a highly ranked journal in-and-of-itself, however, does not 
indicate a petitioner's sustained national or international acclaim. A given publication's high ranking 
or impact factor is reflective of the publication's overall citation rate. It does not, however, show the 
influence of any particular author or demonstrate how an individual's research has had an impact 
within the field. Several of the researchers who provided letters in support of the petition reference 
the Petitioner's publications in Nature Cell Biology, Molecular Cell and Nature Communications, 
comment on the journals' reputations, and indicate that they have also published their own work in 
these publications. For exampleJ I principal scientist atl I 
observes that Nature Cell Biology "only publishes important, original , and outstanding studies in cell 
6 The Petitioner submitted journal rankings published by Scimago Institutions Rankings (scimagojr.com) showing that 
Nature Cell Biology andMol ecular Cell ranked 3rd and 4th among"CellBiology" joumals,Mol ecular Cell is ranked 4th 
among "MolecularCell" journals, and Cell Repo rts,Nature Communications andPloS Biology are ranked 8th, 11th and 
l 5th,respectively, amongjournals classified as "Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (miscellaneous)." 
7 
biology," but her observation does not equate to a statement that the journal only publishes the work 
of nationally acclaimed researchers or that every article published in the journal gamers its authors 
national or international recognition in the field. 
While publishing articles in prestigious publications is noteworthy, evidence of journal rankings must 
be considered along with other relevant information regarding the Petitioner's publication and citation 
record; the reputation of a journal that published her work is not sufficient to demonstrate that the 
Petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of the field. For the additional reasons 
discussed below, the Petitioner has not shown that her overall publication record demonstrates the 
required sustained national or international acclaim for this classification. 
As authoring scholarly articles is often inherent to the work of scientists and researchers, the citation 
history or other evidence of the influence of such articles can be an indicator to determine the impact 
of her work, the recognition that her work has received, and whether such influence and recognition 
have been sustained. Such an analysis at the final merits determination stage is appropriate pursuant 
to Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1122. At the time of filing, the Petitioner provided evidence that her w01k 
had been cited by others 419 times, with her most cited articles receiving 116, 56, and 43 citations, 
respectively. 7 
Throughout this proceeding, the Petitioner has argued that citation counts are "a poor measure [ of] 
significance in any given scientific field" and "bear little relevance to sustained acclaim." 8 
Nevertheless, she has submitted evidence intended to provide additional context for her citation figures 
and to establish their significance. At the time of filing, she provided a chart from Thomson-Reuters' 
In Cites Essential Science Indicators, highlighting what appear to be average citation rates for articles 
published between 2007 and 2017 in the research field of "Molecular Biology & Genetics." The 
Petitioner stated that, based on the figures provided in the chart, a similarly published researcher in 
this field "might be expected to receive approximately 185 citations in the same timeframe" while she 
received over 400, or 2.25 times the average. The Petitioner reasoned that "the amount of citations 
that these works have received compared to the average demonstrates that [she] and her work have 
received sustained acclaim in her field." 
In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner provided a different, more recent InCites Essential 
Citation Indicators "baselines-percentiles" chart, with the field "Biology & Biochemistry" highlighted. 
She compared her cumulative citations for articles published between 2009 and 2019 with the 50th 
percentile citation figures provided on the chart and emphasized thather466 cumulative citations were 
3.24 times higher than the median baseline figure. We discussed this evidence in our previous 
decision, noting that, when comparing the two charts, the "Biology & Biochemistry" research field 
7 These citation figures are for the Petitioner's 2012 Molecular Cell article, her20 I 6Nature Cell Biology article, and her 
2013 Biotechnology and Bioengineering article, as of March 2019. The updated Google Scholar profile she submits on 
motion, which includes additional articles published in 2019 and 2020, indicates 651 cumulative citations. The article in 
Molecular Cell remains hermostcited publication, with 128 citations as ofJuly 2020. 
8 The Petitioner acknowledged thatthere are researchers who have garnered thousands of citations for their work, but states 
that they "have generally been ab le to do so because they are frequently named as the 'corresponding author' for several 
publications," or "[i]n other words, these authors are credited for leading the lab in which the studies were perforrned­
not for executing the studies orpublishingthework." She did not, however,provide anycorroboratingevidence to support 
this argument or herposition that citations are irrelevantto her eligibility for this classification. 
8 
has substantially lower average citation rates than the "Molecular Biology & Genetics" field initially 
selected as an appropriate point of comparison. She did not exp lain why a different research field was 
selected at the time of the RFE response. 
We agree with the Petitioner that there is no threshold number of citations that must be met for an 
individual to demonstrate her extraordinary ability in the sciences. Nevertheless, we must review her 
publication and citation record in context and it is her burden to establish that she is more likely than 
not in that small percentage of researchers at the very top ofher field. As we noted above and discussed 
in our prior decision, the evidence she submits to show more specifically where her published work 
stands in relation to others is incomplete and inconsistent, and the Petitioner's motion does not address 
this deficiency. 
We acknowledge thatl I who runs the~ laboratory where the Petitioner works, 
comments on the Petitioner's cumulative citations. She states that '"compared to traditionall I 
research,~-----~ is a relatively new field," and that '"it is not surprising that the citation 
number is lower compared to other traditional! I studies.'1 I observes that she has "seen 
young assistant professors and even associate professors in our field, who do not have the citations 
that [the Petitioner] has" and states that she considers the Petitioner's number of citations to be "vezy 
impressive." As of the date of filing, the Petitioner was working as a postdoctoral fellow, 
approximately five years removed from completion of her Ph.D. I ts observation she has more 
citations than some scientists in her specific field who are somewhat more advanced in their careers 
is not sufficient to support a finding that her overall body of research has been recognized at a level 
that places her in the small percentage at the top of that field. 
The information provided from InCites Essential Science Indicators shows that several of the 
Petitioner's individual published papers have higher-than-average citation rates in the "Molecular 
Biology & Genetics" field, and citation rates that would place them among the top 10% of papers 
published in the "Biology and Biochemistry" research field in the same year. The Petitioner's 2012 
Molecular Cell article meets the top 10% threshold according to this metric, but there is a significant 
gap between articles that meet this threshold ( 49 citations) and the most cited papers in the field (3,091 
citations at the top 0.01 %, 569 at the top 0.1 %). 
We also recognize that the Petitioner has continued to publish her work and that her number of 
citations increased considerably after the date of filing. For example, her 2016 Nature Cell Biology 
article, which had 56 citations at the time of filing, had 121 citations according to the Google Scholar 
profile submitted in support of the motion. Continued citation of the Petitioner's work after the filing 
date speaks to the significance of that work, which we have granted, above; but it cannot retroactively 
establish eligibility at the time of filing. The Petitioner must meet all eligibility requirements at the 
time of filing. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
While the Petitioner's citations, both individually and collectively, show that the field has noticed her 
work, she did not establish that such rates of citation are sufficient to demonstrate a level of interest in 
her field commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim orrepresent attention at a level 
consistent with being among small percentage at the very top of her field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
9 
Most of the Petitioner's arguments on motion focus on her original research contributions. The issue 
before us in the final merits determination is whether the Petitioner has received recognition for those 
contributions that establishes her sustained national or international acclaim and that has elevated her 
to the very top of her field. The Petitioner has shown that the work she has perfom1ed during her 
graduate studies and ostdoctoral f ellowshi sis im ortant research that has contributed to scientific 
understanding of 'ses and which may lead to roved 
diagnostic capabilities and therapeutic strategies for ~-~and other diseases. letter 
establishes that the Petitioner is a valuable contributor to her laboratory at w.-'h""i""le::......--,---' 
I lofl I University, comments on the 1,boratorv's reputation, noting that~--~-
is a leading expert i~ !studies." I~. ___ ___,braises the Petitioner's work a as 
"outstanding" and states that she is an "asset to the biomedical research community." However, this 
evidence does not lead to a detennination that the Petitioner enjoys sustained national or international 
acclaim. 
As discussed, the Petitioner has established that she is the co-inventor of a patented .... ! _____ ____, 
system that is being "optimized for production and commercially developed for clinical applications," 
but she has not demonstrated any individual recognition she received as one of 13 co-inventors of the 
patented invention. The Petitioner has also emphasized that GeneCards, described as "a searchable, 
integrative database that provides comprehensive, user-friendly information on all annotated and 
predicted human genes," lists her 2019 Nature Communications article under the entry for the 
I ] as the "primary source" of information about the gene. In response to the RFE, the 
Petitioner stated that "an entry like this will be read and used by every scientist in the world who 
investigates or works with this gene," and claimed that "[a] Genecard Entry such as this giving the 
author of the article that elucidated the function and effects of this gene is instant international 
notoriety." While a letter from l 0 )who co-authored this article, discusses the Petitioner's 
important contributions to the project and the significance of the discovery, she does not mention the 
GeneCards entry as an indicator that the Petitioner received individual recognition for her discovery, 
much less "instant international" acclaim in the field. Further, it is unclear that the inclusion of the 
Petitioner's article on the GeneCards entry occurred prior to the filing of the petition, as it was 
submitted for the first time in response to the RFE. 
The evidence related to the Petitioner's other contributions demonstrates that her work has been relied 
on by other researchers who have cited to her publications, and has a number of potential applications, 
but does not demonstrate how her activities have garnered her national and international acclaim. For 
example, the Petitioner submitted evidence that the research findings of her 2012 Molecular Cell 
article were reported by science-related media outlets in the United States and China. As noted above, 
this evidence supports the significance of those findings. However, although the Petitioner contributed 
to the research and authored the paper, the media reports do not single her out or acknowledge her for 
her findings. 
The recommendation letters in the record summarize the Petitioner's research, speak to its originality 
and potential to impact further research and therapeutic treatments, and comment on its publication in 
prestigious journals. While some of the authors assert that they consider the Petitioner to be at the top 
of their shared research field, they do not elaborate on how she has garnered the necessary sustained 
national or international acclaim to elevate her to that level. For instance! I states that the 
Petitioner "is unquestionably one of the top research scientists in her field in the world." I I 
I !Professor and Principal Investigator a~ I university indicates thatthe Petitioner "has 
emerged as one of the outstanding scientists in the world in the rapidly developing area ot1 I 
I I research." Similarly J !of University o~ I indicates that the 
Petitioner "clearly is one of the top scientists in her field" and "has proven herself to be an 
extraordinary scientist." In addition, at least three of the letters point to the Petitioner's employment 
atOas evidence of her standing in the field, noting that the university "only takes the best scientists 
from around the world." 
While these letters contain claims regarding the Petitioner's standing in her field, the statute 
nevertheless demands "extensive documentation" of her recognition. Section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the 
Act. We emphasize that we find that the expert recommendation letters to be credible in their 
descriptions of the Petitioner's research, its significance and its potential, and the authors are sincere 
in their assessment of her abilities as a scientist. However, the letters are not supported by sufficient 
evidence that the Petitioner's publications, peer review activities, and research contributions to date 
have resulted in her being viewed by the overall field as among that small percentage at the very top 
of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The Petitioner did not establish that she has 
received widespread recognition for her achievements and is recognized by the greater field as having 
a career of acclaimed work. See H.R. Rep. No. at 59. 
The record as a whole, including the evidence discussed above, does not establish the Petitioner's 
eligibility for the benefit sought. As noted in our prior decision, the Petitioner is in the early stages 
of what promises to be a very successful career in the sciences, but she seeks a highly restrictive visa 
classification, intended for individuals already 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 statutmy 
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, we find the record insufficient to demonstrate 
that she has sustained national or international acclaim and is among the small percentage at the top 
of her field. See section 203(b )(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not shown proper grounds for reopening. We have 
reconsidered our previous determination that the Petitioner did not meet the initial evidence 
requirements at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), and again we conclude that the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated her eligibility for the classification sought. Accordingly, the motions will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
11