dismissed EB-1A Case: Molecular Virology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 17497613 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : WL. 23, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner , a research scientist in the field of molecular virology, 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 record did not 
establish, as required, that the Petitioner meets at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for 
this classification. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner 's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence. See Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofChawathe, 25 
l&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 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 pet1t10ner can demonstrate 
international 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 criteria 
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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a research scientist in the field of mo""le;....;;c-"u=la=r_v....;;i;;;...ro;;..cl=o=gy.;...;_ . ...c;.A=t'-t=h=e-'t=im~e....;;o...c;.f_;;;;f=1l=in=g=,...;c;h;;.ce_w'-'-=asc...., 
employed as a postdoctoral research associate for the I I I la~~------~~ inl IT~enn-es-s-ee-. ----------~ 
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 Petitioner asserts that he can satisfy four of these ten criteria, 
summarized below: 
• (ii), Memberships in organizations that require outstanding achievements of their members; 
• (iv), Judging the work of others in the field; 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance in the field; and 
• (vi), Authorship of scholarly articles in professional publications. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner met two of the evidentiary criteria, related to judging the 
work of others and authorship of scholarly articles. We agree. The Petitioner submitted evidence that 
he is a member of the editorial board of Journal of Life Sciences and has served as a peer reviewer for 
other scientific journals in his field and therefore satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
In addition, the record reflects that he has authored articles published in professional publications 
included the Journal of Virology, Frontiers in Microbiology, and Journal of Biological Chemistry, 
thus satisfying the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred in concluding that he did not satisfy the 
membership criterion or establish that he has made original contributions of major significance in his 
field. After reviewing all the evidence in the record, we conclude that he has satisfied one additional 
criterion. 
2 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) calls for evidence of the individual's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, 
athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field. The Petitioner maintains 
that the Director overlooked or excluded much of the evidence he submitted in support of this 
criterion 1 and states that, when viewed collectively, the record establishes that he has more likely than 
not made significant scientific contributions based on his original research. We find the Petitioner's 
claims ersuasive with respect to his research regarding the role of thel I 
which includes his 2019 article, I I 
published in Journal of Virology. 
The Petitioner provided two letters from University! I professor! I a 
permanent member of th .__ ___________________ __. ._ ____ _.l who 
served as the scientific editor for the Petitioner's first-authored publication in Journal of Virology, 
writes: 
~----~I is one of the most attractive and sought-after therapeutic targets for the 
development of next generatio dru s. I can confirm that [the Petitioner's] 
crucial work, using the investigationa has provided compelling 
biochemical evidence for a regulatory role o .__ _________ ___, His finding 
represents a significant advance in the ongoing efforts to discover and understand novel 
roles of I I infection and in the development of effectivd I inhibitors. 
~----_.I also emphasizes that the fact that the article was selected to be featured on the Journal 
of Virology's cover further validates it "high value and influence." Finally, he states, that, based on 
his own long-standing relationship with thg lhe can affirm that "the fact that [the Petitioner's] 
work was the basis of a successful I I grant funding, which is the most competitive and 
prestigious grant in the biomedical field, is clear proof that his research findings were evaluated and 
judged by the experts to be of significance and a major development in the field." 
I 7 a professor in the Department of Microbiology and Immunology atl • I 
Universiti ___ ~f°further explains that the Petitioner's findings "helped solve a longstanding and 
open-ended debate that had been marked by contradictory results ... on thel I function of 
~------~in virus replication." .... L ____ ___,J explained that he cited to the Petitioner's 
Journal of Virology article twice in his own 2019 Nature Microbiology paper, noting that he 
highlighted the Petitioner's work as a "vital and major development." He further states: 
The lack of understanding of the role o~ • I in these stei;,s of I I represents 
one of the last substantial knowledge gaps regarding thel hfecycle. [The 
Petitioner's] timely publication last year in the Journal of Virology provided a major 
breakthrough and clarity in the field. His ingenious work, b roviding a direct 
biochemical evidence tha can be blocked by an dru 
that specifically target established a functional role for ~--------~ 
1 The Director determined that "most of the letters were written by experts who have employed, instructed, or collaborated 
with you," and therefore could not show the recognition of the Petitioner's work outside his "circle of colleagues." 
However, as emphasized by the Petitioner on appeal, almost all the submitted letters were from experts in the field who 
have not employed or collaborated with the Petitioner. 
3 
replication. . .. [The Petitioner] set forth the few pror that I I !is critical 
for I len after entering the This finding has fundamentally 
advanced the field. 
I !Director of I jwith biopharmaceutical company! I I I also addresses the Petitioner's Journal o} Virology publication, noting that it "both 
fundamentally advanced basic research on! I and opened exciting new prospects for a second 
generation ofl !drugs that target these activities." He emphasizes that the Petitioner's 
work "yielded the first compelling evidence for a direct link betwee~ I" He 
describes the significance of the Petitioner's findings in technical detail and states that "the 
information revealed through [the Petitioner's] research on! I is very valuable to 
researchers in the field who strive to develop! I drugs." 
I indicates that he cited to the Petitioner's work in his own 2019 Nature Medicine article in 
.__w_h-ic_h_h_.is team reported on the discovery of anl ldrug that bind an inhibits the function of 
I I He further explains that "to rtend rre Petitioner's] work O to our newly disclosed 
I I ... my research team at and his research team at ____ l~ecuted a 
Material Trnsfer Arreement" which allows the Petitioner to investigate the effects ofl__J's newly 
discovered od I The Petitioner has provided a copy of the material transfer 
agreement. 
Based on this and other evidence related to this research, the Petitioner has ;rovided sufficient detail 
to establish the nature and significance of his contributions tol I research projects at 
I I Therefore, we conclude that he has satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) and 
established that he meets the initial evidence requirements for this classification by satisfying three of 
the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the Petitioner submitted the reqms1te initial evidence, we will evaluate whether he has 
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, his sustained national or international acclaim and 
that he is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, and that his 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. 2 
The record reflects that the Petitioner completed his bachelor's degree in biochemistry ad .... ___ ___. 
University in India in 1992 and his master of science in biochemsist a~ luniversity in 1995. 
He was subsequently employed as a research fellow at the - II 
I I inl I from 1996 to 1999, where he studied....._ _________ ___,_ 
2 See also 6 users Policy Manual F.2(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual (stating that users 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 expertise for the immigrant classification) . 
4 
~--~I The Petitioner received his doctorate degree in molecular virology fro~ I University 
in 2006. During his studies at I I he worked as a graduate research assistant in the De artment 
of Botany and Plant Pathology from 2000 to 2006. Since 2007,,J..ll,<.....u.u.>l....l.!.!o.<.lo..l..L.....U.LMJJ.~~.1.1....---....a, 
research, initially as a postdoctoral research visiting fellow in the.__ ___________ ~ _ __. 
.__-~-----~--' from 2007 to 2012. He later served as a special research volunteer in this 
program in 2013 and has been with the I I at~--------~since 2015, initially as 
a research assistant, and since 201 7, as a postdoctoral research associate. In 2018, the Petitioner was 
recognized as the "Postdoctoral Fellow of the Year" atl ~ based on his work 
atl I 
As mentioned above, the Petitioner has judged the work of others within his field, authored scholarly 
articles, and made scientific contributions through his research, and we have considered other evidence 
in the record including evidence of his membership in a professional association and his presentations 
at conferences and meetings in his field. The record, however, does not demonstrate that his 
achievements to date reflect a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. 
H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990) or place him among that small percentage ofresearchers 
at the very top of his field. 
Regarding his service as a judge of the work of others, an evaluation of the significance of his experience 
is appropriate to determine if such evidence is indicative of the extraordinary ability required for this 
highly restrictive classification. See Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1121-22. Participation in the peer review 
process does not automatically demonstrate that an individual has sustained national or international 
acclaim at the very top of their field. The Petitioner highlights~----------' of Journal 
of L[fe Sciences (JoLS) (previously published as Journal of Postdoctoral Research), which he had held 
since October 2017. 3 JoLS is described as "a Postdoc community initiative," which is "entirely run by 
Post-Doctoral research scientists from universities and research institutes across the world." According 
to the journal's website, its I I staff includes "senior and seasoned post-doctoral scientists with 
excellent publication and research experience." The journal emphasizes that it offers "rich learning 
opportunities to fresh Post-doctoral trainees," providing a forum for them "to participate and train in 
scientific writing, peer-reviewing, editing and building a compelling scientific resume." 
The Petitioner provided a letter from~--------------~ of JoLS, who confirms 
that the journal's .__ ____ ___."consists of accomplished postdoctoral scientists from various 
universities and research institutions." He states that the Petitioner was selected for his position as an 
I I through a "stringent selection rrocess" and because of his "international reputation 
as a leader in the area of Molecular Virology." 4 _ I does not farther address the selection 
process or the specific criteria considered in the decision to select a researcher as anl I board 
~peal, the Petitioner provides evidence that he is currently.__ _______ _. ofJoLS and one of 130 ~ 
L___J' who form the Journal Topics Board for Vaccines, an open-access journal focused on laboratory and clinical 
vaccine research. The Petitioner did not hold these positions at the time of filing. The Petitioner must establish that all 
eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time of the filing and continuing through 
a[iudication 8 C.F.R. § I 03.2(6)(1 ). 
4 I also discusses the Petitioner's role as a~ ______ _,for Society of Life Sciences, which is 
described as "outreach arm" of Journal of Life Sciences which showcases "the accomplishments and life stories of the 
stakeholders in the scientific research enterprise." The record does not reflect that the Petitioner's role with Society of 
Life involves peer review activities or other activities that involve judging the work of others in his field. 
5 
member, nor does the record contain evidence showing, for example, that other postdoctoral 
researchers who serve as JoLS1 I enjoy sustained acclaim at the top of their respective 
fields. 
The evidence submitted regarding the Petitioner's editorial role for JoLS demonstrates he has been 
recognized by the journal as an accomplished postdoctoral researcher in his field. As noted, JoLS 
specifically seeks to highlight the research work of postdoctoral trainees and limits selection to its 
I I to "senior and seasoned post-doctoral scientists" thereby excluding much of the field 
in its selection process for these positions. The evidence does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's 
role reflects or resulted in his sustained national or international acclaim or that it ~-----~ 
places him among the small percentage of scientists at the very top of his field, which includes all 
research scientists and not only postdoctoral researchers. 
The record also reflects that the Petitioner has served as an ad hoc peer reviewer for JoLS and six other 
journals, including PLoS One, The Open AIDS Journal, and Infection and Drug Resistance. The 
Petitioner did not provide information from these journals reflecting their requirements or selection 
criteria for peer reviewers and therefore we cannot evaluate his judging activities in terms of those 
requirements. None of the invitation emails in the record indicate or imply that peer review for these 
specific journals is a privilege reserved for top experts, rather than a responsibility shared by individuals 
with relevant subject matter knowledge. The evidence regarding the Petitioner's service as a peer 
reviewer for journals verifies his expertise as researcher in the field of molecular virology but does 
not demonstrate that his service in this role is indicative of his widespread acclaim or elevated standing 
within his field. 
The Petitioner provided a letter froml I who serves as 
I latl IUniversity'sl !Medical I'-n-st-it-ut-e'.l====::;-ls-ta-t-es_, 
that "peer review is essential for validation and evaluation of research" and that "journal editors select 
and invite experts in the specific research area for this vital task." However, having subject matter 
expertise in a given field is a lower threshold than enjoying standing among the small 8ercentage at 
the very top of that field. With respect to the Petitioner's specific peer review experience,L I 
notes that his "selection to serve as a reviewer for several journals farther indicates that he is a notable 
researcher in the field," but he does not assert that the Petitioner's peer review activities have 
contributed to or reflect his sustained national or international acclaim among researchers in molecular 
virology. 
The Petitioner also rovided evidence that he served as a judge for the 2012 Fellows Award for 
ponsored by the ._I _____ ___,..----,, 
_____________________ T_h_e_r_e_c_o~rd reflects that Petitioner won a 201 .... 11 __ __. 
award during his postdoctoral fellowship a Thd ~rds recognize "outstanding scientific 
research performed by intramural postdoctoral fellows" atLJ Fellows submit an abstract of their 
research, which is peer reviewed in a blind study section competition, and authors who score in the 
top 25% are recognized asl lwinners, receive a $1500 travel stipend to present their abstract at a 
scientific meeting, and serve as judges the following year. While the Petitioner's receipt of the award 
and resulting appointment to judge the I lompetition are notable professional achievements, the 
record does not establish that either the 2011 award or the associated judging opportunity for the 2012 
competition earned him national or international recognition. 
6 
Overall, we note that, without evidence that sets him apart from others in his field, the Petitioner has 
not shown that his judging experience to date places him among that small percentage who has risen 
to the very top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). He did not show, for example, how 
the number of reviews he conducted or the position he held on an editorial board compares to the 
judging activities of researchers at the top of the field or demonstrate that he has garnered wide 
attention from the field based on his peer review work. 
With respect to his authorship of scholarly articles, the Petitioner provided evidence that he published 
1 7 articles between 2006 and 2020, as well as a book chapter, published in 1999. 5 However, the 
Petitioner's publication of his research does not automatically place him at the top of the field and he 
has not provided evidence that directly compares his research output to that of others in his field. We 
acknowledge that some of the expert opinion letters address the Petitioner's publications among his 
other achievements. For example, I I of the University ofl I I I states that the Petitioner "has maintained a productive career as a scientific researcher in the 
United States," stating that this is evidenced by his publications in peer-reviewed journals and research 
presentations at conferences in the field. I I likewise praises the Petitioner's "considerable 
productivity" noting that he is "an impressive researcher and an expert in the area of retrovirology," 
whose work is regularly "published in reputed journals" and selected for conference presentations. 
Although the record reflects that the Petitioner has 13 years of post-doctoral experience in the5? 
research field, we note that 14 of his 18 publications had been published since he joined I in 
2015, and that 12 of those were published since 2017. This evidence supports the expert opinions that 
he has become a productive researcher in the field, especially in recent years, but the record does not 
contain sufficient evidence that his publications have garnered him sustained national or international 
acclaim or place him among the small percentage of scientists at the very top of his field. See 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). The commentary for the proposed regulations implementing section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of 
the Act provide that the "intent of Congress that a very high standard be set for aliens of extraordinary 
ability is reflected in this regulation by requiring the petitioner to present more extensive 
documentation than that required" for lesser classifications. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30704 (July 5, 1991). 
The Petitioner also emphasized that he published his work in "the leading forums in his field." He 
provided the journal impact factor for each journal that has published his work and noted that "many 
peer-reviewed journals are ranked in their field according to these impact factors." However, he did 
not provide their respective rankings. Nevertheless, we note that publication in a highly ranked journal 
in-and-of-itself does not indicate a petitioner's sustained national or international acclaim. Moreover, 
a publication's impact factor simply reflects 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. As discussed above, several of the expert opinion letters call particular 
attention to the Petitioner's publication in Journal of Virology and note the significance of having his 
2019 article featured as I I While we recognize that this publication is noteworthy, the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate that his overall publication record is tantamount to a career of acclaimed 
5 The Petitioner indicated that he had three additional manuscripts undergoing preparation or peer review when the petition 
was filed in July 2020. As noted. the Petitioner must 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)(l). 
7 
work or that it 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 his articles can be an indicator to determine the impact 
and recognition that his work has had on the field and whether such influence has 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 offered evidence from Google Scholar indicating that his 
articles had been cited 261 times, with his top three articles receiving approximately 123, 31, and 28 
citations, respectively. 6 While the Petitioner's citations, both individually and collectively, show that 
field has noticed his work, he did not establish that such rates of citation are sufficient to demonstrate 
a level of interest in his field commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim. See 
section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. 
A letter froml I oti I University I I discusses four of the 
Petitioner' sl Ire search studies and states that "the citation record of [ the Petitioner's] 
impactful articles is quite high in his area of expertise and are commensurate with the citation record 
of other articles of major significance in the field published during the corresponding time period." 
However, the studies referenced b~ lhad accumulated between 0 and 11 citations, respectively, 
at the time he wrote his letter and no supporting evidence was submitted to establish that these numbers 
are "quite high." In addition,! I notes that one of the review articles co-authorel by thel 
Petitioner "remains one of the most frequently cited publication on the late events of 
I I' apparently in reference to the Petitioner's 2011 Physiology review article, which had 123 
citations at the time of filing. The Petitioner did not submit any other evidence in support of his claim 
that some of his individual articles have been highly cited or establish how such citations are indicative 
of or resulted in his national or international acclaim or recognition. Nor does he compare his 
cumulative citations to others in his field of endeavor. Based on the limited comparative information 
provided, the Petitioner did not show that the citations to his research represent attention at a level 
consistent with being among small percentage at the very top of his field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The Petitioner emphasizes that some of his articles published in on-line, open access journals have 
been viewed and downloaded with a frequency that far exceeds their citation rates, and have 
collectively been viewed and downloaded over 28,000 times as of the date of the appeal. This 
evidence, unlike evidence of citations to the Petitioner's work, does not demonstrate that other 
researchers have frequently applied or implemented the Petitioner's work, either in their own 
published research or in practice. The supporting evidence does not provide any context regarding the 
significance of these download numbers or a basis for comparison of the Petitioner's download 
statistics in relation to others in in his field. For example, we note that the numerous expert opinion 
letters in the record do not address the Petitioner's article views and downloads in discussing his 
achievements and reputation in the field. While the downloads may show that his articles have been 
read or reviewed, the record does not establish the importance or relevance of the figures provided. 
6 An updated Google Scholar profile submitted in response to a request for evidence indicated 287 cumulative citations to 
the Petitioner's work as of October 2020. The Petitioner's most-cited article is a 2011 review article published in 
Physiology. Three of the Petitioner's five most-cited articles were review articles, rather than publ'"[1'om o£bis ayginal 
research, with the remaining two aiiicles based on olant-based research he conducted a~ l0n the .r J virus. 
His most-cited original research publication in th[ I was his 2019 Journal of Virology article. 
8 
Specifically, he did not demonstrate that such download numbers sufficiently demonstrate a level of 
interest in the field commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim or represent 
attention at a level consistent with being among small percentage at the very top of his field. 
The Petitioner also submitted evidence related to his presentations at national and international 
conferences and laces articular em hasis on his particiTation as a presenter at multiple sessions of 
the~---~-~---~--~-,.......... Meeting onl I Participation in conferences 
demonstrates t at 1s origina researc m ings were shared with others in the field. I I 
I I a professor atc==lUniversity, emphasizes that it is significant that the Petitioner's 
work has been selected by ~r podium presentations on multiple occasions, noting that there 
are "hundreds of competing submissions" and that I I is "one of the most preeminent meetings in 
the field of1 !attended by national and international experts." I I mentions the 
fact that the Petitioner's research is "regularly selected for oral and poster presentations at major 
international conferences, including the renowned I O I meeting," in 
support of his opinion that the Petitioner is "an impressive researcher and an expert in the area of 
I t' I I mentions that he personally "watched [the Petitioner's] notable talks 
and presentations at the internationally renowned 
.__ ____ __.I ~-------------------' 
The evidence related to the Petitioner's conference presentations provides support for a determination 
that his original research findings are valued for thJ1r significance in an active research field. While 
we do not doubt that the Petitioner's participation in and other meetings and conferences in his 
field has garnered him recognition from conference attendees who attended his talks and viewed his 
poster presentations, the record does not establish how his activities in this area compare to other 
researchers in his field. Further, while the record indicates that there is a competitive peer review 
process associated with participation in these conferences, the evidence does not demonstrate that 
podium and poster presentation opportunities are reserved only for those researchers who are at the 
very top of the field. The selection of the Petitioner's work for the~--------' meeting over 
several consecutive years is noteworthy and reflective of the high quality of that work. However, the 
record does not establish how the Petitioner's scholarly work, whether published or presented, has 
earned him sustained acclaim, or how it sets him apart from others and places him among that small 
percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
On appeal, the Petitioner highlights his membership in Sigma Xi, asserting that the Director erred in 
determining that this scientific research honor society does not qualify as an association that requires 
its members to have outstanding achievements as judged by recognized national or international 
experts. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). While we disagree with the Director's determination that 
Sigma Xi is not an "association," we agree that the evidence does not establish that it is one which 
requires its members to have outstanding achievements. The Petitioner submitted his membership 
certificate indicating that he was promoted to "foll membership" in 2011, two letters from Sigma Xi, 
the portion of the Sigma Xi bylaws that address membership requirements, and information from the 
society's website. The initial letter from Sigma Xi states that "[f]ull membership is conferred upon 
those who have demonstrated noteworthy achievements in research" and that "Sigma Xi interprets 
'noteworthy achievement' to include primary authorship of two papers" including refereed journal 
articles, patents or internal reports." According to this letter, "[t]he Society also considers career 
preparation, career path, quality of research and similar factors" although these requirements are not 
9 
stated elsewhere in the provided materials and no explanation was provided regarding how these 
factors are weighed. The subsequent letter from Sigma Xi states that "Full Membership is reserved 
to only those leading experts in the field, who have made noteworthy achievements. In our 
organizations' view, the term 'noteworthy' is the same as the term 'outstanding."' 
Even if we determined "noteworthy" and "outstanding" are synonymous and that publication of two 
first-authored publications can be deemed an "outstanding achievement," the record does not offer 
sufficient support for the assertion that only "leading experts in the field" are admitted to full 
membership, or that full membership in the organization reflects or results in national or international 
acclaim. The Petitioner does not articulate a claim that he was recognized as a "leading expert" in his 
field when he was admitted as a full member of Sigma Xi in 2011. At that time, he had co-authored 
two published research articles, one in 2006 and one in 2011. While it appears that this record was 
sufficient to meet the "noteworthy achievements" requirement for promotion from associate member 
to full member, and his full membership is notable, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how such 
membership is indicative of his placement among the small percentage of scientific researchers who 
have risen to the top of the field. 
The record also contains 14 recommendation letters from 12 experts in the field that summarize the 
Petitioner's research and original contributions and, in some cases, comment on his overall 
achievements and reputation in the field. Most of the letters comment primarily on the Petitioner's 
research witH I during the few years preceding the filing of the petition. As discussed above, 
we have considered these letters and relied on them, in part, in determining that the Petitioner has been 
recognized for significant research contributions related ttj I based 
on his recent work atl I The importance of his work and contributions has been acknowledged 
through these letters and his record of participation in federally funded research projects, publications, 
presentations, and citations. However, as with all the regulatory criteria, satisfaction of the "original 
contributions" criterion does not establish eligibility or create a presumption of sustained national or 
international acclaim. Letters of this kind can assist in explaining and demonstrating the nature and 
impact of the Petitioner's contributions but should be supported with corroborating documentary evidence 
to establish that he is recognized as being at the top of the field. While we acknowledge that most of the 
letters are from scientists who have not directly worked or collaborated with the Petitioner, the record 
as a whole does not show that the writers' views represent the consensus within the field. 
While all the authors offer praise for the Petitioner's research achievements to date and expertise in his 
field, they are not uniform in their assessments of his standing and degree of acclaim and recognition in 
the field. As noted,,~-----,----~describes the Petitioner as having a " roductive career as a 
scientific researcher" and as an "expert and distinguished scientist in the field." notes that 
the Petitioner is "an impressive researcher and an expert in the area o " and notes his 
"considerable productivity and laudable professional contributions." ~------~' an assistant 
dean at the University ofl I states that he regards the Petitioner as an 
"extraordina[ and successful researcher," a "productive and prominent scientist" and a "very talented 
researcher." _ I describes the Petitioner's work as "commendable and praiseworthy," 
states that his capabilities as a researcher are "exemplary" and expresses his opinion that the Petitioner 
"will continue to be a leading scientist in the future." 
10 
Other letters include more direct assertions regarding the Petitioner's standing in the field ..... I ___ ____,. 
a Professor at I I University, states that he "would place [the Petitioner] among the top 
scientific talents in this vital field" based on his ublications, citat\ons presentations at conferences 
and selection as a peer reviewer for journals. of1 .... _ ---------~- states 
that the Petitioner is "well known internationa y as an 1 ustnous expert in the field." FurtherD 
I !describes the Petitioner as "clearly an individual of extraordinary abilities that are much 
sought after in the field," whilel lstates that the Petitioner, based on his contributions 
"exceeds the achievements and contributions of others within his field" and "has obtained an 
international reputation that places him at the top of his field." 
Here, while the letters (including those reviewed and not discussed here) praise the Petitioner's 
expertise and contributions to the field, they do not provide sufficient information and explanation, 
nor does the record include sufficient corroborating evidence, to show that he is already viewed by his 
overall field as being among that small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. See 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). We acknowledge that some of the submitted letters referenced the Petitioner's 
publications, citation record, contributions, and peer review activities. However, as discussed above, 
we have reviewed this evidence and do not find, for example, that the Petitioner's experience as a peer 
reviewer or his citation record supports a finding that he has sustained acclaim and is at the very top 
of his field. The record establishes that the Petitioner has performed critical work in the0esearch 
field as a postdoctoral researcher in two distinguished laboratories, and that he has had the opportunity 
to publish and present his original findings. The evidence shows that the Petitioner has increasingly 
gained notice in the field for his research achievements over the past several years, particularly during 
his tenure a~._ ___ _.~nd that he is likely poised for sustained national or international recognition 
in the future. 
However, the record as a whole does not establish the Petitioner's eligibility for the benefit sought. 
Here, the Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at 
the top of their respective fields, rather than those progressing toward the top. Even major league level 
athletes do not automatically meet the statutory 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 he has the required sustained national or 
international acclaim and is among the small percentage at the top of his field. See section 
203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
III. CONCLUSION 
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. 
11