dismissed EB-1A Case: Molecular Biochemistry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 6016073 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : APR. 23, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a molecular biochemist, 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 
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 petition, concluding that the Petitioner had 
satisfied only two of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for this classification, of which he must meet at 
least three . 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director failed to apply the preponderance of the evidence 
standard to the facts presented . He maintains that he meets three of the initial evidentiary criteria and 
is otherwise qualified for the benefit sought. 
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 de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l) 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 in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien 's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth 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. § 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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner was employed as a post-doctoral researcher in the department of 
biology atl JUniversity. 1 He received his bachelor's de ree in chemistry froml I 
College, his master's degree in biochemical technology at Universit , and his doctor 
of philosophy degree in biochemistry atl I The State University of.__ ___ _. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because 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 only two of the initial 
evidentiary criteria,judging under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and authorship of scholarly articles under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
The record reflects that the Petitioner has peer reviewed manuscripts for scientific journals including 
Cellular & Molecular Biology, International Journal of L[fe-Sciences Scient[fic Research, Bioscience 
Reports, and Cell Biochemistry and Biophysics. He also provided evidence that he serves as an 
editorial board member for three journals, including Journal of Biology and Life Science, and 
Frontiers in Physics, Physiology and Molecular Biosciences. In addition, the Petitioner has submitted 
evidence that he authored scholarly articles published in several scientific journals including Science 
and Molecular Cell. Accordingly, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner fulfilled the judging 
and scholarly articles criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he meets one additional criterion, discussed below. We have 
reviewed all of the evidence in the record and conclude that the Petitioner has not established that he 
satisfies the requirements of at least three criteria. 
1 The record reflects that he received a promotion to the position of Basic Life Research Scientist loon after fi)jnF, the 
netjtjon in March 2r 8. Subsequently, the Petitioner accepted a position as a "Senior Scientist 1,.__ ___ _.with 
I . 
2 
Evidence of the individual'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). 
In order to satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner must establish that not only 
has he made original contributions 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 or influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major 
significance in the field. 
The Petitioner claimed in his initial cover letter that he has made five original contributions of major 
significance in the field, as evidenced by his published research, citation record, letters from experts 
in the field, and other evidence. Specifically, he highlighted the following areas of research: (1) 
investigation of the mechanism of transcription involving the (2) 
identification of the mechanism by which anti-bacterial agents disable the I r 
I I (3) development of an I I labeling 
technology; ( 4) investigation of the mechanism of transcriptionl I and transcription 
I ]and ( 5) development of a novel assay that permits combined I I 
andl of transcription. 
Although the Petitioner provided evidence reflecting the originality of his research through 
recommendation letters praising him for his contributions, the authors do not provide specific 
examples of contributions that are indicative of major significance. In general, the letters recount the 
Petitioner's research and findings, indicate their publications in journals, point to the citation of his 
work by others, and comment on their potential and possible future applications, but do not 
demonstrate that his research have made the required impact in the field . 
.__ ___ ~I of I I University describes the Petitioner's work on I I transcription 
mechanisms as "particularly enlightening," noting that he obtained "the first definitive information 
about how the I I to facilitate transcription." I I notes that 
transcription is "universal to all life forms" so "increasing our understanding of how it occurs has "far 
reaching implications." ,__ ______ __, of the I I Laboratory also 
notes that transcription is a "universal process" and states that disruptions in transcription are 
associated with many diseases." He indicates that the insights provided by the Petitioner's research 
"provide valuable information for researchers to develop new therapeutic treatments by targeting 
.__ ____ _.I activities." He does not explain how other researchers have used this information to 
date, nor does the record show that therapeutic treatments have been derived from this particular 
research. .__ _______ _. of University of I I echoes I Is statements regarding 
the "far-reaching implications" of this research and states that he was inspired to publish a review 
"elaborating on its importance." However, he does not further explain the importance of the discovery, 
what its "far-reaching" implications are, or its specific impact on the field, nor does the record contain 
a copy of the review that he authored. 
~-----~' formerly a principal scientist at I I discusses the Petitioner's analysis of 
the biological mechanisms relevant to the I O I' of He notes that the 
Petitioner investigated the behavior of three natural products ( abbreviated I ~ that 
were known to selectively bind to thisl ~ and to exhibit antibacterial activity. D 
3 
.__ _ ___.I explains that the Petitioner investigated the behavior of thesel I inhibitors and 
found that they each caused thd I to lock in a closed position, thus preventing transcription 
from taking place. He explains that the Petitioner's research "provided a valuable foundation for 
further research and development of antimicrobial agents." He mentions two other research groups 
who had used the Petitioner's findings to develop new! I drugs with 
antibacterial activity, describing them as "noteworthy pharmaceutical developments." I I 
notes that the Petitioner's research in this area aids further investigation into "alternatives to current 
antibacterial drugs that target.__ __ ~ ____ .....," noting that it has "directly resulted in multiple 
endeavors to bring new antibacterials to the ~lace, offering new treatment options for many 
diseases including tuberculosis." Similarly, L__J states that the Petitioner's findings are "highly 
relevant to the development of new antibiotics" that may help fight bacterial strains that have grown 
resistant to existing options. He confirms that there have been "a host of projects aimed at developing 
new I O !," noting that the Petitioner's work has been applied in "direct and 
consequential ways." 
While the record indicates that other researchers in academia and in the pharmaceutical industry have 
built upon the Petitioner's research, the evidence does not establish that the field views the Petitioner's 
work as a contribution of major significance. Nor does it demonstrate that it has resulted in new 
antibiotic drugs that are available in the marketplace; rather, it appears that that such an im 
prospective in nature. For exampleJ I of University o_L'-------,------.---~.&..<.1.1,;....,_, 
that '1 .... ___ __.l published papers expressing interest in developing drugs to target the~---~ 
region." 
Several of the submitted expert opinion letters comment on the Petitioner's design of an._! ____ __, 
.__ _______ _. labeling technology . .__ _____ __.of I I University states that the 
Petitioner "has received considerable attention for developing a technology to attach I I 
probes for single-molecule studies using a.__ ______ __.," and notes that "many researchers are 
employing this tool to study various proteins with a level and degree of accuracy never achieved 
before." I I also comments on the Petitioner's technological advance, noting that 
"[ s ]uccessful biochemical research ... demands that the scientist develop customized instruments and 
techniques to do things that have never been done before." He explains that the "scope of applicability 
for this method is vast and includes virtually any study involving protein structure or function." The 
submitted letters do not explain how the novel technique has been widely implemented or how it has 
been regarding by the field as a contribution of major significance. Rather,I Is statement 
suggests that it is common for biochemical researchers to develop new techniques in order to carry 
out their research. 
The above-referenced letter from also addresses the Petitioner's investigation of transcription 
I I and transcription.__ ________ _. He explains that c=J' s "location and 
role in unwinding DNA was poorly understood prior to [the Petitioner's] investigation," and notes that 
the Petitioner "produced the first evidence of an I I relationship between the two factors ... 
during the transcription process."I ~ indicates that the functionality o~ I is "of major interest 
to researchers studying topics including cancer and birth defects." I l a research 
associate atl I University, describes the Petitioner's research in this area as "influential" 
describes the work of a team of researchers that "profited from [the Petitioner's] insights into the 
nature oQactivity." These letters do not sufficiently detail in what ways the Petitioner has 
4 
advanced the state of research in his field or elaborated on how the Petitioner's work has already 
impacted the wider field beyond the teams of researchers who have directly cited his article on this 
topic. 
Finally,! l's letter discusses the Petitioner's development of al I assay that permits 
combined! I and .__ _____ ~__, of the transcription process. He states that the 
techniques the Petitioner developed to carry out this project "place him at the vanguard of biochemical 
and biophysical researchers" and notes that very few laboratories worldwide have been able to 
successfully employ such an approach. With respect to the impact of the research,! I notes 
that [a]berrations in gene expression are at the core of many of the most vexing problems in medicine" 
and states that the Petitioner "is building the framework to understand and eventually treat these 
conditions in radically new ways." However, he does not discuss in detail how the Petitioner's work 
has already remarkably impacted their shared field or provide examples of specific applications 
attributed to the Petitioner's work in this area. 
The letters considered above primarily contain attestations of the novelty and utility of the Petitioner's 
research studies without providing specific examples of contributions that rise to a level consistent 
with major significance. Letters that specifically articulate how a petitioner's contributions are of 
major significance to the field and its impact on subsequent work add value. 2 Letters that lack specifics 
and 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 The authors' assertions in the above-referenced letters 
do not explain how the Petitioner's research findings have been widely implemented in the field or 
not establish that the Petitioner's work has had a demonstrable impact on the field as a whole 
commensurate with a contribution of major significance. 
The Petitioner also submits his publication and citation record from Google Scholar. But this evidence 
not show that the impact of his work on the overall field of molecular biochemistry rises to the level 
of an original contribution of major significance. 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." Rather, the appropriate analysis is to determine whether a petitioner has 
shown that his findings, factoring in citations and other corroborating evidence, have been considered 
important at a level consistent with original contributions of major significance in the field. We 
acknowledge, however, that a petitioner may present evidence that his articles "have provoked 
widespread commentary or received notice from others working in the field, or entries (particularly a 
goodly number) in a citation index which cite [his] work as authoritative in the field, may be probative 
of the significance of [his] contributions to the field of endeavor. "4 
Here, the Petitioner submitted evidence from Clarivate Analytics showing that three of the articles he 
published were ranked among the top 10% in citations when grouped by academic field (in this case, 
molecular biology and genetics) and year of publication. He also submitted a paper published in the 
journal Scientometrics which suggests that this metric is one of three that should be used to evaluate 
2 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, supra, at 8-9. 
3 Id. at 9. 
4 Id. at 8. 
5 
individual researchers in the natural and life sciences for purposes of funding and promotion or hiring 
decisions. The authors state that "publications which are among the 10% most cited publications in 
their subject area are as a rule called highly cited or excellent" and that "the top 10% based excellence 
indicator" should be given "the highest weight when comparing the scientific performance of single 
researchers." However, this evidence does not establish that metrics that may be suitable for 
comparing applicants for academic research positions and grants are indicators that a researcher has 
made contributions of major significance to his or her field. 5 
Comparative rankings to baseline or average citation rates do not automatically establish that a given 
petitioner has made a contribution of major significance in the field. 6 A more appropriate analysis, 
for example, would be to compare the Petitioner's citations for individual articles to other similarly, 
highly cited articles that the field views as having been of major significance, as well as factoring in 
other corroborating evidence. Highly cited publications alone are not sufficient under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that they were of "major significance" as a citation ranking does not 
provide sufficient context to determine the impact or importance of a given researcher's work in the 
field. We also acknowledge that the Petitioner provided evidence that two of his articles were 
published in journals with high rankings based on their impact factor. However, a publication's high 
ranking or impact is reflective of the publication's overall citation rate. It does not demonstrate the 
influence of any particular author within the field, how an author's research impacted the field, or 
establish a contribution of major significance in the field. That context must be provided by other 
evidence in the record. 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated, as he asserts, any of the three articles he characterizes as highly 
cited resulted in an original contribution of major significance in the field. While the Petitioner 
submitted corroborating evidence in the form of expert opinion letters, that evidence, for the reasons 
already discussed, is not sufficient to establish that any of the Petitioner's research findings, 
individually or collectively, have remarkably impacted or influenced his field. 
Further, the record indicates that the Petitioner submitted samples of research articles that cited to his 
work. A review of those articles, though, does not show the significance of the Petitioner's research 
to the overall field beyond the authors who cited to his work. For instance, the Petitioner provided a 
partial copy of an article entitled, 
'-------------~-~----~-----___.(Molecular Cell), in which the 
Petitioner highlighted two sentences that cite to his 2012 Science article. 7 However, the article does 
not distinguish or highlight the Petitioner's written work from the other cited papers, of which there 
are more than 50. The submitted research articles reference the Petitioner's work as evidence ofrecent 
research, and, while the articles indicate that the authors' own research built upon the Petitioner's 
5 Further, we note that evidence that summarizes citations to the Petitioner's entire body of published work do not 
demonstrate that any specific work of his is so widely cited and relied upon that it is considered to have made a major 
impact in his field. Comparison of the Petitioner's cumulative citations to others in the field is often more appropriate in 
determining whether the record shows sustained national or international acclaim and demonstrates that he is among the 
small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor in a final merits determination. 
6 For instance, according to the data from Clarivate Analytics, chemistry papers published in 2017 receiving only seven 
citations and in 2018 receiving only two citations are in the top 10%. The Petitioner has not demonstrated that papers with 
such citation counts have necessarily had a major, significant impact or influence in the field as evidenced by being among 
the top 10% of most highly cited articles according to year of publication. 
7 Although we discuss a sample article, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
6 
work, as well as the work of the other cited scientists, the Petitioner not demonstrate that the overall 
field views his published findings as original contributions of major significance. 
The Petitioner also emphasizes that his publications have been cited in several review articles, and 
submits a screenshot of a page from the website of the University of Texas Libraries titled "What's a 
'Review Article?'" The Petitioner states that inclusion in review articles shows that his work "has 
been widely upheld as a benchmark for farther study in molecular biology." The evidence indicates 
that review articles are "an attempt to ... sum up the current state of the research on a particular topic" 
and may identify "the main people workin in a field" and "recent ma·or advances and discoveries." 
One of the submitted review articles, titled I i(Microbiology and Moleculc._u_· B-io_l_o_gy_R_e_v_ie_w_s_)_, -c-it_e_s-to-th_e_P_e-ti-ti_o_n-er_'_s_2_0_1_2_S_c_·i-en_c_·e_. 
article and 2011 Current Opinions in Microbiology article among at least 155 other articles. While the 
evidence indicates that the Petitioner has made original contributions to what appears to be an active 
field of research, we cannot determine that every publication cited in a review article is indicative of 
majorly significant. 
In addition, the Petitioner maintains that a mention of his 2012 Science article published by the 
I I provides evidence of the rgniycance of the his 
research findings. The article, which was published on the "News" portal on s website, credits 
the Petitioner and his team with explaining the mechanism~ction for the natural antibacterial 
substances discovered be=] scientists. The article discussesl_Js ongoing research in this area and 
speculates on the prospective potential impact of that research. For example, the article quotes D 
scientists who state that "[t]heir application in the fight against those bacteria that have evolved 
resistance to traditional antibiotics opens up a world of possibilities in terms of new drug design," 
"[t]he substances cannot in their current form be used as drugs quite yet," and "we have to first 
continue to fine-tune their integration into potential new drugs." The article reports on how the 
Petitioner's findings may impact the field at some point in the future but does not demonstrate that the 
current impact of his work rises to a level of "major significance" as rTuiref- Therefore, while the 
article reports on the Petitioner's published article and its relationship to s original identification 
of the substances andD s ongoing research, he did not demonstrate how his work already qualifies 
as a contribution of major significance in the field. 
Finally, the Petitioner argues that his research has been fonded by the National Institutes of Health 
(NIH) on multiple occasions and provides statistics relating to the competitiveness of securing grants. 
Receiving fonding to conduct research is not a contribution of major significance in-and-of itself 
Rather, the Petitioner must establish that receiving the grant is reflective of his past work's major 
significance, or that his research conducted with the NIH grant resulted in a contribution of major 
significance in the field. The record contains two recommendation letters confirming that the 
Petitioner's "contributions directly led to the obtainment of [NIH] fonding." The letters, however, do 
not sufficiently illustrate how the fonding reflects the importance of the Petitioner's contributions, nor 
do they indicate the research results of the NIH fonding and whether they are majorly significant in 
the field. 
Considered together, the evidence consisting of the citations to the Petitioner's published findings, the 
citation statistics, and the reference letters from his fellow biochemists and other experts, establishes 
that the Petitioner has been productive, and that his published data and findings have been relied upon 
7 
by others in their own research. It does not demonstrate that the Petitioner has made a contribution of 
major significance in the field of biochemistry. Therefore, he has not met 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 of his work is indicative of the required sustained national or 
international acclaim or that it is 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 he 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 reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility 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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
8