dismissed EB-1A Case: Nanostructure Material Synthesis And Electrochemistry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF Q-L-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JULY 17, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a researcher, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in the field 
of "Nanostructure Material Synthesis and Electrochemistry." See Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(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, finding that the Petitioner had 
satisfied two of the initial evidentiary criteria, of which he must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he meets an additional criterion, relating to original 
contributions of major significance in the field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). He maintains that he 
qualifies for the classification. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act makes visas available to certain immigrants 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. 
Matter of Q-L-
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 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 the petitioner does not submit this evidence, then he or she must 
provide documentation that meets at least three of the ten criteria listed under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items such as qualifying awards, published material in certain media, 
and scholarly articles). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
submitted material in a final merits determination and assess whether the record, as a whole, 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, 1119-20 
(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, 1343 (W.D. Wash. 2011). This 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 credibility, both 
individually and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be 
proven is probably true." Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner's resume and other documents show that he received his Doctor of Philosophy degree 
in mechanical engineering from I I University in Indiana in 2014. The evidence indicates that he 
began working as a postdoctoral research associate at the.__ _________ ____. in Illinois in 
November 2014. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner met the participation as a judge criterion under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and the authorship of scholarly articles criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
The record supports this conclusion. The Petitioner has presented evidence from professional 
publications - including Nano Energy, Journal of Materials Chemistry A, and Journal of Power 
Sources - confirming that he has served as one of their manuscript reviewers. Additionally, the record 
establishes that he has authored scholarly articles that are published in professional journals. For 
example, Nano Energy published his article I I 
and Nature Energy 
published his article '.__ ____________________________ __, 
I I 
Although the Petitioner has satisfied two criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), as we will 
discuss below, he has not demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, 1 that he meets the initial 
1 If a petitioner submits relevant, probative, and credible evidence that leads U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCTS) to believe that the claim is "more likely than not" or "probably true," the petitioner has satisfied the 
2 
Matter of Q-L-
evidence requirements of satisfying at least three criteria. 2 He claims that he has made original 
scientific contributions of major significance in the field of "Nanostructure Material Synthesis and 
Electrochemistry." See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). The record, however, is insufficient to support this 
assertion. 
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). 
To satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner must establish that not only has he made original contributions 
but that they have been of major significance in the field. Major significance in the field may be shown 
through evidence that his research findings or original methods or processes have been widely 
accepted and implemented throughout the field, have remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or 
have otherwise risen to a level of major significance in the field. See USCIS Policy Memorandum 
PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9. 
The record is insufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner has satisfied the criterion under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v). According to supporting documents he submitted when he filed the petition in May 
2017, he had authored 33 published peer-reviewed articles that, according to a 2017 Google Scholar 
printout, received approximate! 720 citations. The rintout indicates that his most cited work at the 
time was his 2013 articl 
'-----~~----~-~------.-' which had been cited approximately 150 times, and that 
his other articles had each garnered a substantially lower number of citations, with some receiving 
none. On appeal, he submits an updated Google Scholar printout and other evidence, showing that he 
has authored additional articles and that his work has received additional citations since he filed his 
petition in May 2017. 3 
While the Petitioner has offered printouts from Clarivate Analytics to support his assertion that his 
articles have received more citations than those of other scientists in related fields, he has not 
established that he satisfies this criterion. 4 He presents incomplete copies of other researchers' papers 
that cite to his work. For example, a 2016 Chemical Reviews article cites his article among at least 
119 other papers. A 2015 Energy and Enviornmental Science article references his paper among at 
least 190 other articles. A 2016 Nano Energy article lists two of his articles among at least 199 other 
papers. Similarly, a 2016 Materials Science & Engineering article cites his article among at least 788 
other references. Citations to the Petitioner's work illustrate that his work has had some impact, the 
"preponderance of the evidence" standard of proof. See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005. L Evaluation of 
Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 Petitions; Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, 
AFM Update AD 11-14 4 (Dec. 22, 2010), https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/i- l 40-
evidence-pm-6002-005- l .pdf. 
2 The Petitioner has not alleged, and the record does not demonstrate, that he has received a major, internationally 
recognized award. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). As such, he must provide documentation that meets at least three of the 
ten criteria listed under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) to satisfy the initial evidence requirements. 
3 We determine his eligibility by focusing on facts that existed at the time he filed the petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(1) 
(providing that eligibility must be established at the time of filing). 
4 The Clarivate Analytics printouts include data on "baselines-citation rates" and "baselines-percentiles" in research fields 
such as "chemistry," "engineering," "materials science," and "physics." These documents, however, do not provide 
specific information for the field of "Nanostructure Material Synthesis and Electrochemistry," in which the Petitioner 
claims extraordinary ability. 
3 
Matter of Q-L-
record, however, does not sufficiently demonstrate that his research has been widely accepted, 
implemented, or regarded as authoritative throughout the field, has remarkably impacted or influenced 
the field, or has otherwise risen to a level of major significance in the field, as required under the 
criterion. See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, 8. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence, the Petitioner submitted printouts from Thomson 
Reuters Web of Sciencej and claimed that his articles are the 635th most cited paper between 1978 
and 2018 on the topic of I' and the 257th most cited paper between 2015 and 2018 on 
the topic of 1 f' However, he has not shown that the citation ranking confirms his work 
constitutes major significance in the field. Moreover, he claims extraordinary ability in the field of 
"Nanostructure Material Synthesis and Electrochemistry," which encompasses multiple topics. His 
influence on two topics is insufficient to verify that his impact in the field, as a whole, rises to a level 
of major significance. 
The Petitioner also asserts that his work has been published in well-regarded journals and that he has 
presented at conferences. This evidence confirms that the journals and conference saw value in his 
research and concluded that it should be shared with others in the field. However, such evidence, 
without documented impact in the field, is insufficient to confirm that his work has risen to a level of 
major significance in the field after he disseminated his findings. See USCIS Policy Memorandum 
PM 602-0005.1, supra, 8. Furthermore, the prestige of a publication or conference might reflect its 
standing in the field, but such evidence is insufficient to establish an author or a presenter's work 
constitutes contributions of major significance in the field. Publications and presentations do not 
satisfy 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), aff'd in part, 596 F. 3d 1115, 1122 (9th Cir. 2010). 
Although the record includes a number of reference letters, they are insufficient to confirm that the 
Petitioner satisfies this criterion. These letters offer details on his professional accomplishments, 
including his judging, reviewing, writing, and researching activities. While they confirm that his work 
has impacted the field, they do not establish that the impact rises to the level of major significance. 
I l an associate professor of physics at thd I university, indicates that the 
Petitioner's "groundbreaking findings" have been published in "highly accredited, world renowned" 
publications . .===========;'also indicates that "[his] works provide the foundation for the current 
research on .__ _____ __. and have "triggered the continuous improvement of capacity of 
electrodes, which is a pre-requisite for improvement ofhigh-energ~ ~" I I 
an IBM research scientist, states that the Petitioner has "made some important discoveries," noting 
that "[ t ]hese are significant findings in the field of energy storage since they present new information 
that differs from previous studies." Other references, including.__ ____ --! a professor o~ 
~in at the University;! I a professor at the University of L___J 
L___J , a professor of chemical engineering at the I I Institute of Technology; and 
~--~-~-a_s_e~nior scientist at thel 
O 
J Laboratory, praise the Petitioner's research 
findings, indicating they are important discoveries that have advanced the field. 
The record, including the reference letters, demonstrates that the Petitioner's work has value and has 
received some attention in the field. The evidence, however, has not sufficiently established that the 
impact or influence of his work has risen to the level of "major significance" in the field. See Kazarian, 
4 
Matter of Q-L-
596 F .3d at 1122 (finding that "letters from physics professors attesting to [ a petitioner's] contributions 
in the field" were insufficient to meet this criterion); Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 (upholding a 
finding that a ballroom dancer had not met this criterion because she did not demonstrate her impact 
in the field as a whole); see also USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, 8-9 (providing 
that "[l]etters that lack specifics and simply use hyperbolic language do not add value, and are not 
considered to be probative evidence that may form the basis for meeting this criterion"). The Petitioner 
has not sufficiently shown that his research - which has resulted in incremental advancements in the 
field, as are expected in any original research - qualifies as contributions of major significance in the 
field. 
Some of the documentation discusses the potential of the Petitioner's work. For example,..,I ___ ~ 
,___ _ ____.I categorizes the Petitioner as a "young" scientist who "shows great promise and potential in 
solving research problems with great scientific significance and applicability." He claims that the 
Petitioner's work "will guide the research and development of a new generation oti I and their 
~ications" and "will revolutionize the next generation of portablr consumer e)ectronjcs "I I 
L_J and I I a group leader and principal investor at_ I Laboratory, 
similarly reference the potential of the Petitioner's research. Additionally, the Petitioner has offered 
a press release :osted onl I University's website, discussinP the potential impact of his work on 
I J and an article posted on the I j Laboratory website, noting that his 
research "is promising to enable further understanding of nanomaterials formed through microwave 
synthesis." Such evidence, including the reference letters and online materials, speculates his future 
influence in the field. It is, however, insufficient to confirm that he has already made original 
contributions of major significance in the field, as required under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
Upon a review of all the relevant documents in the record, we conclude that the Petitioner has not 
established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he has made original contributions of major 
significance in the field. He has not presented evidence demonstrating that his research has provoked 
widespread commentary, has been referenced as authoritative, or has received notice from others at a 
level indicative of its "major significance" in the field. See Kazarian, 580 F. 3d at 1036; USCIS Policy 
Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9. He has not satisfied 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, upon a review of 
the record in its entirety, we conclude that it does not support a finding that he has established the 
acclaim and recognition required for this classification. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals who are 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 academic, scholarly, research, and 
professional accomplishments is indicative of the required sustained national or international acclaim 
5 
Matter of Q-L-
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; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The record does not establish that the Petitioner qualifies for classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. The appeal will therefore be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each 
considered as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is 
the petitioner's 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 Q-L-, ID# 3711409 (AAO July 17, 2019) 
6