dismissed EB-1A Case: Molecular Genetics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF U-S-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY30,2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a molecular geneticist, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in 
the sciences. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(I)(A), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(I)(A). This first preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who 
can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and 
whose achievements have been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that although the Petitioner satisfied three of the regulatory criteria, as required, 
she did not show sustained national or international acclaim and demonstrate that she is among the 
small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional documentation and a brief, argumg that she has 
sustained the required acclaim and has risen to the very top of her field. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(I)(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. 
.
Malter of U-S-
The term "ex traordinary 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 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 that 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). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirement s, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USC IS, 596 F .3d 1115 (9th Cir. 20 l 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 determin ation); 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. O. Wash. 20 ll ). Thi s 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 credib ility, both individuall y 
and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is 
probably true." Mauer ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a molecular geneticist who is .working as a research scientist at 
m New York. As the Petitioner has not 
established that she has received a major, internationally recognized award, she must satisfy at least 
three of the alterna te regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
The Director found that the Petitioner met the following three criteria: judging under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv), original contributions under 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5(h)(3)(v), and scholarly article s under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). The record reflect s that the Petitioner reviewed two manuscripts for 
and authored six scholarly articl es in published 
professional journals , such as thereb y fulfilling the judging and scho larly articles 
criteria. However , the record does not support the Director 's determination regard ing o riginal 
contributions of major significance. Although we do not find that the Petitioner meet s at least three 
criteria, we will evaluate the totality of the evidence, including her claims of original contributions 
of major significance in the field, in the context of the final merits determination below. 
I 
2 
.
Matter of U-S-
B. Final Merits Determination 
While the Petitiqner has not established the requisi te initial evidence, we will evalua te whether she 
has demon strated, by a preponderance of the evidence, her sustained national or internation al 
acclaim and that she is one of the small percentag e at the very top of the field of endeavo r, and that 
. her achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documen tation. In a final 
merits determination, we analyze a petitioner's accomplishments and weigh the totality of the 
evidence to determine if her successes are sufficient to demonstrate that she has 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 
Kazaria n, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. In this matter , we determ ine that the Petitioner has not shown her 
eligibilit y. 
The record reflects that the Petitioner received her doctor of philoso phy in mole cular medicine from 
in Germany in 2009 . According to her Form G-325A , Biographi c 
Informati on, she has worked as a research scientist for (20 1 0 - 20 12), 
(20 12 - 20 13), and (20 13 ...; present). As mentioned above, the 
Petitioner reviewed manuscript s, authored scholarl y a rticles , and conducted research. The record, 
however , doe s not demonstrate that her achievements are reflecti ve of a "career of acclaimed work 
in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723 , 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). 
·Regarding her judging service, an evaluation of the significanc e of her experience is appropriate to 
determine if such evidence is indicative of the extraordinary ability required for this highly 
restricti ve classification. See Kazarian , 596 F. 3d at 1121-22. The record reflects that the Petitioner 
complet ed two manuscript reviews for in 2015. 
Here, the Petitioner did not establish that her review of two manuscript reflect s t he required 
sustained national or international acclaim. See section 203(b )(l)(A) of the Act. We note that the 
Petitioner provided evidence showing requests from 
for her review of four addition al manuscript s in 2014 and 2015 , and a 2015 email from Roger 
inviting her to join the editorial board. The Petitione r, howeve r, did 
not show that she perform ed the additional manuscript reviews o r served on the editorial board. 
Regardle ss, the Petitioner has not demon strated that the additi onal four manu scri pt reviews and 
editorial board membership would show a _"career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated 
by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. at 59. Nor is there s upporting eviden ce demonstrating the stature of the 
two journ als to show that such invitations are reflective of sustained national or international 
acclaim. 
Furthermor e, in many scientific and academic fields, peer review is a routine element of the process 
by which books and articles are selected for publication or for presentation at conferences. 
Participation in the peer review process does not automatically demonstrate that an individual has 
sustained national or internation al acclaim anhe very top ofher field. Without evidence that sets her 
apart from others in her field, s uch as eviden ce that she has a consistent history of completing a 
substantial · number of review requests relative to others, served in editorial positions for 
distingui shed journals or public ations, or chaired technical committ ees for reputable conferences , the 
3 
.
Mauer of U-S-
Petitioner has not established her peer review experience places her among that small percentage at 
the very top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
With regard to her authorship of scholarly articles, the Petitioner presented evidence showing that 
she authored six papers in profe ssio nal journals. The Petitioner , however, has not demons trate d tha t 
this publication record is consi stent with being among the small percentage at the top of the field or 
having a "career of acclaimed work." H.R. Rep. No. at 59. In addition, the commentary for the· 
proposed regulations implementing section 203(b )(I )(A)(i) of the Act provide that the "intent of 
Congress that a very high standar d be set for aliens of extraordin ary ability is reflected in this 
regulation by requiring the petitioner to present more extensive docu mentation than that required" 
for lesser cla ssifications. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30704 (July 5, 1991 ). Here, the Peti tio ner has not 
shown that authorship of six published articles is reflective of being among the small percentage at 
the top of her field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
As authoring scholarly article s is often inherent to the work of scientist s and research ers, the citation 
history or other evidence of the intluence of her articles can be an indicator to determine the impact 
and recognition that her work has had on the field and whether such influence has been sustaine d. 
For exampl e, numerous independent citations for an article autho red by the Petition er may provide 
solid evidence that her work has been recognized and that other researchers have been influenced by 
her work. Such an analysis at the final merits determination stage is appropriate pursuant to 
Kazarian , 596 F. 3d at 1122 . Here , the Petitioner offered evidence that her articles have been cited 
approximately 90 times 
1
, with her highest cited article cited approximately 58 times and her 
remaining articles cited 10 times or less. She did not, however , establish that such rates of citation 
are suffi cie nt to demonstrate a level of interest in her field commen surate with sustained national or 
international acclaim. Moreover , the Petitioner has not shown that citations to her research and work 
reflect original contributions of major significance in the field. 
In addition , the record contain s evidence relating to the "impact factors" and "citation rankings" of 
the journal s that published her papers. For example, impact factor is ll. 711 and 
ranked 4 out of 76 similar publications. That a publication bears a high ranking or impact factor is 
reflective of the publication 's ove rall citation rate . It docs not , however, demon strate the influence 
of any particular author within the field or how an author's resea rch has had an impa ct within the 
tield. Here, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that her six published paper s published in 
professional journals places her among the small percentage at the very top of her field or 
demonstrates sustained national or international acclaim. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2); section 
203(b)(l)(A) ofthe Act. 
1 The Petitioner claims that "her current citation [is] over 145 count (50% increase of [sic] since her 2016 submission of 
the 1-140 petition)." Although the Petitioner provides a self-compiled graph of her citations for each of her papers, she 
does not supplement the record with documentation supporting her assertions. Moreover, the Petitioner must establish 
that all eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time of the filing and continuing 
through al:ljudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
4 
.
Maller of U-S-
Although the Petitioner provided evidence of the citations to her work, she argue s that "[r]ecent 
research has confirmed that there is no linear or other statistical relationship between the number of 
publication s and citations and their scientific value and impact." The Petitioner submits articles arid 
documentation in which the authors opine that " [c]itation rates and journal impact factors are not 
suitable fo~ evaluation of research." For instance , . indicates 
that "[i]nstead of the total number of citations , which has been traditionally used as a mea sure of the 
impact of an article, the proposed measure aims at discerning the genuine number of people the 
paper has had an impact upon" (emphasis in original). Furthermore, 
states that "citation rates are determ ined by so many techni cal factors 
that it is doubtful whether pure scientific quality has any detectabl e effect at all." Notwithstanding 
that the Petitioner originally argued the significance of her citations, she has not offered an 
alternative argument on appeal or provided different documentation showing that her research places 
her among the small percentage at the top of her field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). Moreover, the 
Petitioner has not shown the "number of people " impacted by her resea rch, as indicat ed by Mr. 
Aragon. 
Again, while citations are not the only way to gauge the importance or recogn ition of an individual's 
work, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner' s work has been considered 
significant and garnered acclaim in the field. The record contains recommendat ion letters that 
discussed the Petitioner's research impact on the authors' own work but do not show that it rises to a 
level of original contributions of major significance in the field or that it has garnered sustained 
national or international acclaim. For example , stated that the Petitioner's 
"work served as a foundation 
for part of our studies ," indicated that the Petitioner's 
"finding s impacted my research directly and very significantly ," and claimed that 
the Petitioner 's "research contributed significantly to our research." 2 Although the letters praise the 
Petitioner's research in assisting them in their own research, they do not show how her contributions 
have greatly influenced the overall field, reflecting that her original contributions have been of major 
significance and have garn ered attention at a level among that small percentage at the very top of the 
field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). · Although the authors indicate that the Petitioner's 
work is "pioneering" and "important" as shown by the publication of her work in scientific journals 
that has been discussed and analyzed above, they do not establish majorl y significant cont ributions 
to the greater field receiving widespread attention . 
• The record as a whole, including the evidence discussed above, does not establish the Petitioner's 
eligibility for the benefit sought. The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, 
intended for individuals alread y at the top of their respective fields. US CIS has long held that even 
athletes performing at the major . league level do not automatically meet the statutor y standar ds 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 establi sh that there is no one more 
accomplished to qualify for the classification sought, we find the record insufficient to demonstrate 
2 While we discuss a sampling of the Petitioner 's letters, we have revie wed and conside red each one. 
5 
• 
Malter of U-S-
that she has sustained national or international acclaim and is among the small percentage at the top 
of his field. See section 203(b)(I)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not established her eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of U-S-, 10# 1319853 (AAO May 30, 20 18) 
6