dismissed EB-1A Case: Nanoscience

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF P-K-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV . 14, 2019 
PETITION: FORM I-140A, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner , a nanoscientist , seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in the field 
of science. 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 Texas Service Center denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker , 
concluding that the Petitioner had satisfied two of the ten initial evidentiary criteria , of which he must 
meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and asserts that he meets three of the ten criteria. 
Upon de nova review , we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability if: 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education , business , or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work m the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States . 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation 
Matter of P-K-
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). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner to submit comparable 
material if he or she is able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not 
readily apply to the individual's occupation. 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) 
( discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the 
required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner, a post-doctoral scholar in physics, holds a PhD in ph=sics from the University of 
I I At the time of filing he worked at the University ot1 !conducting research 
on quantum dot materials. Because he has not indicated or established that he has received a major, 
internationally recognized award, the Petitioner must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). In denying the petition, the Director found that the Petitioner 
met the regulatory criteria for judging at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and scholarly articles at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). The record reflects that the Petitioner served as a peer reviewer of manuscripts for 
journals such as Materials Letters, Materials Chemistry and Physics, and Applied Optics, among 
others. In addition, it shows that he has authored scholarly articles in professional publications such 
as the Indian Journal of Pure & Applied Physics. Accordingly, we agree with the Director that the 
Petitioner fulfilled the judging and scholarly articles criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he meets a third criterion, discussed below. We have reviewed 
all of the evidence in the record and conclude that it does not support a finding that he satisfies the 
requirements of at least three criteria. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient[fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major sign[ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
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. 
2 
Matter of P-K-
In his decision, the Director noted that the record included several recommendation letters discussing 
the beneficiary's research in the field. He found, however that this correspondence lacked "specificity 
regarding how his achievements have affected the field or. .. are being reproduced in the field." The 
Director farther determined that the Petitioner "had not established how other researchers emulate his 
techniques or have widely applied his research results." (emphasis in original.) 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director reached his conclusion in error. Specifically he 
asserts that the Director incorrectly determined that the letters lacked sufficient specificity, did not 
review the record in its entirety, and did not consider the letters in concert with the corroborating 
research articles provided in the record. 
Here, as noted by the Director in his decision, the record contains independent advisory letters 
providing detailed descriptions of the Petitioner's original contributions and higQting each letter 
writer's citations to his work, as well as those of other researchers. 1 For example_ I 
I I group leader at th_.__ __________ __,, discusses the Petitioner's research 
in "the I I characterization of semiconductor nanostructures." He explains that in a 2013 
Nanoscale paper, he and his group "cited [the Petitioner's] research in order to demonstrate that 
electronic transitions are able to be distinguished in the energy band spectrum." I I farther 
notes that "many other researchers have cited [the Petitioner's] work from this project" and concludes, 
"this level of impact is indicative of a highly skilled innovator." 
In a second letter,,.__ _______ _,,.I I Investigator at the Uillversir 0~ I 
states that the Petitioner has "made extensive contributions" in the "study of high ~-----,--,------~ 
materials." I I notes that the Petitioner published the results of his research "in Material 
Letters and the Indian Journal of Engineering & Materials Science," and opines that "these papers 
have had a visible impact on research taking place throughout the field," and that he was one of the 
researchers a 1 in this work. He ex lains that he and his coauthors "applied [the Petitioner's] 
original~-------------.----..--------____.for our own research, published in 
Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical." .__ __ ____. also notes that the Petitioner's work was cited in a 
book chapter, as well as another published article. He indicates that the frequency of the Petitioner's 
work to date shows that "he has come to be seen as a progressive, reliable expert by the entire 
discipline." 
In her independent advisory letter,~--------- a researcher at the I I I !describes the Petitioner as "a preeminent nanoscientist whose deployment of 
b I has been pivotal for the scientific characterization of nanowires and D 
growth methodologies." She describes two papers, one b~ I in the 2011 AIP conference 
proceedings, and one by.__ ______ ____. in a 2015 issue of Nanotechnology. I I 
notes that the former "directed readers to [the Petitioner's] prior work for evidence thatl I 
performance yields information about the underlying nanowire bandgap structure." She concludes 
that "[t]he efficacy with which [the Petitioner] was able to characterize nanowire structures letD 
I I to adopt the same technique in their study." Regarding the latter, notes that 
the authors "invoked [the Petitioner's] well-known~ ________ ____.study to explain their 
observations" and that this study "again shows that [the Petitioner's] international peers use his work 
1Although we do not address each letter, we have reviewed the record in its entirety. 
3 
Matter of P-K-
as a benchmark." With respect to her own research,~-----~notes that in a 2009 Journal of 
Nanomaterials study, she and her coauthors "demonstrated the growth, structural characterization, and 
conductivity evaluation o~ lnanowires grown using1---.--------------~' 
and "built upon [the Petitioner's] technique by incorporating directly into the sidewalls of the 
nanowires." She notes that his work "was an important precursor to our own, which is why we 
referenced his research in our introductory section." 
While these letters show how the Petitioner's research has been critical for each of these researchers, 
they do not explain or demonstrate how the Petitioner's contributions have been majorly significant 
to the overall field. 2 Letters that specifically articulate how a petitioner's contributions are of major 
significance to the field and its impact on subsequent work add value. 3 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. 4 Moreover, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory 
statements. 1756, Inc. v. The US. Atty Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). The authors' 
assertions in the above-referenced letters do not explain how the Petitioner's research findings have 
been implemented throughout the field. Without additional detail explaining his accomplishments as 
they relate to new or innovative techniques or findings, the letters do not establish that the Petitioner's 
work has widely impacted the field such that it rises to the level of major significance. 
Other independent advisory letters in the record speculate on the potential influence and on the 
possibility of the Petitioner's contributions being majorly significant at some point in the future For 
~' L I associate professor of ph4'sics at the University ofl I 
L___J references the Petitioner's work withl J noting that he is working with the 
Petitioner in "developing highly complex approaches for optimizing and applying these materials" 
and that this work "is extreme! excitin in terms of its implications for the creation of ... I l I t' AC, head of the._l _____ ~ _____ __.] 
I 
lat the ~--~National University, also discusses the Petitioner's work on 
. I (QDs)" and states that it is "a landmark discovery for the field with 
substantial implications for making I , I QDs useful in a wide variety of industrial and 
technological applications." The record also includes correspondence between the Petitioner and 
others indicating interest in implementing his research. While these letters show promise in the 
Petitioner's work, they do not establish how his work already qualifies as a contribution of major 
significance in the field, rather than prospective, potential impacts. 
The Petitioner argues on appeal that the Director erred in citing a lack of evidence corroborating the 
assertions made in these research letters regarding the implementation of his work. A review of the 
articles in the record citing to the Petitioner's research does not show the significance of the 
Petitioner's contributions to the field beyond that to the authors citing to his work. For example, in 
2 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form I-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJJ-14 8-9 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
http://www.uscis.gov/laws/policy-memoranda; see also Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 (upholding a finding that a 
ballroom dancer had not met this criterion because she did not corroborate her impact in the field as a whole). 
3 Id. 
4 Id. at 9. See also Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036, affd in part 596 F.3d at 1115 (holding that letters that repeat the regulatory 
language but do not explain how an individual's contributions have already influenced the field are insufficient to establish 
original contributions of major significance in the field). 
4 
Matter of P-K-
the 2013 article 
(Nanoscale) referenced in 's letter, the Petitioner's work is one of three articles cited to in 
support of the statement that ' is corroborated by spatial mapping of 
the (SPCM ... " In the 2009 article mentioned '---~------~~---------~--~-------------~ above b 
'------~ 'the Petitioner's research also is one of a grouping of articles cited to in the text. Other 
articles, such as 1.__ _________ ----.-____________________ .....,! 
(Semiconductor Science and Technology) and 'I I 
'----~--~--------------.---------'' (Nano Letters) cite to the Petitioner's 
2009 Applied Physics Letters article. We note, however, that none of these articles distinguish or 
otherwise identify the Petitioner's research beyond these citations. 
The record also includes 
instance, ' 
ters in which the Petitioner's work is cited. 5 For 
I I 
.__ ____________________ ____. directly references the Petitioner and his 
findings published in a 2010 Material Letters article. However, this chapter only describes his 
research, and does not discuss how these findings have widely impacted or otherwise been used in the 
field. ' 
.__ ______________ __, cites to the Petitioner's 2011 Applied Physics Letters article, 
but does not otherwise distinguish his work from that of others. 
The aforementioned articles and book chapters corroborate statements made in the aforementioned 
independent advisory letters regarding the authors' use of the Petitioner's research in their own work, 
as well as showing that others in the United States and abroad, were able to build upon the Petitioner's 
work and apply it to their own research. However, these publications do not demonstrate that the 
Petitioner's work has impacted or widely influenced the field of nanoscience such that it constitutes a 
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." See Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009), affd in part, 596 
F.3d 1115. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the citation statistics in the record demonstrate that "one of [his] 
articles ranks among the top 10% most cited in his field for its year of publication." He claims that 
this demonstrates "strong evidence of the major significance of his research, as confirmed by 
bibliometrics." The record includes a Google Scholar printout of the Petitioner's publications 
reflecting that this article was cited 55 times, as well as a Clarivate Analytics report titled "InCites 
Essential Science Indicators" stating that articles published in the field of materials science in 2009 
and cited 48 or more times "fall in the 10% percentile" of papers in this field. However, the 
comparative ranking of a single article to baseline or average citation rates does not automatically 
establish that this original contribution has been of major significance in the field. A more appropriate 
analysis, for example, might be to compare the Petitioner's citations to other similarly, highly cited 
articles that the field views as having been of major significance, as well as factoring in other 
corroborating evidence. 
5 While we discuss only a sampling of these chapters here, we have reviewed all chapters present in the record. 
5 
Matter of P-K-
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not met the burden of demonstrating that he meets 
this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
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. USCIS has long held that even 
athletes performing at the major league level 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). Here, the evidence does not establish that the Petitioner has received a major, 
internationally recognized award or meets three of the ten evidentiary criteria. As a result, we need 
not provide the type of final merits analysis referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 
Nevertheless, we find the record insufficient to demonstrate that he has 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). 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, the petitioner bears the burden to establish 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of 
Skirball Cultural Ctr., 25 I&N Dec. 799, 806 (AAO 2012). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of P-K-, ID# 4633172 (AAO Nov. 14, 2019) 
6