dismissed EB-1A Case: Neuroscience

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 14515168 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 15, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a researcher in the field of neuroscience, seeks classification as an alien 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner met the initial evidence requirement for this classification through either 
evidence of a major, internationally-recognized award or meeting at least three of the evidentiary 
criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S .C. § 1361. Upon de nova review , we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(I) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability if: 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States . 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5(h)(2). The implementing regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate 
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. 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 determination); see also 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijalv. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). 
TI. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a researcher specializing in the area of neuroscience. He received his Ph.D. in 
I I Neurobiology from University in 2014 and at the time of filin 
his petition was employed as a postdoctoral research fellow at~------------~ 
~-----~I He states that he plans to continue his research in the field of neuroscience in the 
United States by applying for academic research positions. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that he has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, he must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Director found that the Petitioner met two of the evidentiary criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), relating to participation as a judge of the work of others and authorship 
of scholarly articles. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he also meets the evidentiary criteria relating 
to lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards and contributions of major significance to the 
field of endeavor. After reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we find that although he meets 
the initial evidentiary requirement for this classification, he has not established sustained national or 
international acclaim and that he is one of the small percentage ofresearchers at the top of his field. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) 
The Petitioner initially submitted evidence of several types of awards he received, including a 
scholarship, a fellowship, and an award for an outreach project he conducted. In responding to the 
Director's request for evidence (RFE), he primarily focused on his receipt in 2016 of the Early Career 
Investigator Award from ~---------- The Director noted the additional evidence 
submitted, which included information about previous winners of the award, but concluded that since 
the award is limited to members of0 it did not show that the award is nationally or internationally 
recognized. 
2 
On appeal, the Petitioner focuses on the reputation oO and refers to seven new reference letters 
submitted on appeal. Where a petitioner has been put on notice of a deficiency in the evidence and 
has been given an opportunity to respond to that deficiency, the AA0 will not accept evidence offered 
for the first time on appeal. See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); see also Matter of 
Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533 (BIA 1988). Here, since the Director requested further documentation 
showing that this award was nationally or internationally recognized in his RFE, we will not consider 
these new reference letters. However, we note thp.1..in...r.esponding to that RFE, the Petitioner referred 
to a letter fro ml lof the L_J College of Surgeons! I who reiterates 
much of the information presented on the submitted pages fromOs website and also states a number 
of factors that led to the Petitioner's~eipt of the Early Career Investigator Award. In addition, both 
this letter and0 s website note thatLJ is the national neuroscience society I I and represents 
the c
1
untry it the Federation of European Neuroscience Societies. As this evidence demonstrates that 
Dis s leading professional association in the Petitioner's field, it establishes that the Early 
Career Investigator Award is recognized at the national level in that field. Therefore, we disagree with 
the Director and conclude that the Petitioner has met this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of 
the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which 
classification is sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) 
The record includes letters from the editors of scientific journals, including The European Journal of 
Neuroscience, Journal of Neural Regenerative Research, and Frontiers, which verify that the 
Petitioner has served as a peer reviewer for those journals. Accordingly, we agree with the Director 
that the Petitioner meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarZv articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) 
In support of this criterion, the Petitioner submitted the title pages of more than 20 research articles he 
authored which were published in scientific journals. Additional evidence shows that he has also 
presented papers at scientific conferences. As such, we agree that the Petitioner has established that 
he meets this criterion. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As discussed above, the Petitioner has established that he meets the requisite three criteria, and 
therefore meets the initial evidentiary requirement for this classification. Although he also claims to 
meet a fourth criterion, relating to original contributions of major significance in his field, we need 
not consider whether he meets additional criteria. Rather, we will analyze the evidence of any original 
contributions the Petitioner has made together with the balance of the record in conducting a final 
merits determination. 
In a final merits determination, we examine and weigh the totality of the evidence to determine 
whether the Petitioner has sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small 
percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, and that his achievements have been recognized in 
3 
the field through extensive documentation. Here, the Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence 
that he meets that standard. 
On appeal, the Petitioner does not go into great detail concerning his sustained national or international 
acclaim as a neuroscience researcher or his standing as one of the small percentage at the top of that 
field, but briefly asserts that his receipt of awards and his original contributions of major significance 
are sufficient to meet those standards. In responding to the Director's RFE, he emphasized the 
importance of metrics and statistics based upon the total number of citations to his journal articles 
when discussing the importance of his contributions, as well as within the final merits determination. 
Further, when discussing the impact of his scholarly publications in scientific journals on appeal, he 
also refers back to these metrics and statistics, and asserts that the Director failed to give them 
sufficient weight in his decision. We will therefore begin with a review of that evidence and the 
assertions made by the Petitioner based upon it. 
The Petitioner initially submitted evidence of his papers which were published in scientific journals, 
as well as the number of citations to those papers, from his profile page on Google Scholar. In his 
RFE response, he asserts that the rate at which his papers have been cited in comparison to others in 
his field shows that his work "has been widely cited in his field, which shows that his original work 
was directly implemented by others and of major significance to them." He specifically refers to a 
report in the record from Clarivate Analytics and asserts that it demonstrates his citation rate "is well 
within the Top 5% citation rate within the entire field of Neuroscience ... and is 4 times greater than 
the average citation rate of neuroscience researchers." Both of these claims are based upon a 
comparison of the Petitioner's "impact factor" in the years 2014-2016, calculated using citations to 10 
of his papers published between 2013-2016, to the 2017 impact factors of 261 scientific journals that 
publish articles in the field of neuroscience. 
However, these conclusions made by the Petitioner are not supported by the statistics and metrics he 
has included in the record. Most importantly, the Petitioner is claiming that his citation rate is among 
the top 5% in his field based upon a comparison not to the impact factor of other researchers, but to 
that of scientific journals. He does not explain how such a comparison of two completely different 
sets of data leads to his conclusion, or why it supports his assertion that he is one of the small 
percentage of neuroscience researchers at the top of the field. Similarly, his statement that his citation 
rate is four times greater than the citation rate of other neuroscience researchers is based upon a 
comparison of the average citation rate for neuroscience papers, not that of individual researchers, and 
therefore does not take into account the many factors that differentiate these figures, including that 
papers typically have multiple authors. Again, the Petitioner does not explain the relevance of this 
comparison or that it supports either his conclusion or his eligibility as an individual of extraordinary 
ability. 
In addition, the usefulness of the comparisons suggested by the Clarivate Analytics report is put into 
question by other evidence in the record. A paper published in the journal Scientomerics on February 
29, 2012 describes and defends what is referred to as the "Garfield impact factor" as a means of 
"representing the relative contribution of journals to the total impact of information in a field," and 
stresses that "[T]he use of GF ( e.g. for evaluation purposes) should not be extended from the journal 
to the authors of papers," as the Petitioner does in reaching his conclusions. Also.I I I hates that he disagrees that "the comparison of average citation rates per year between [the 
4 
Petitioner's] publications and other researchers in the field does not show that [the Petitioner's] work 
has been highly influential. .. " As noted, the comparison made by the Petitioner is not between his 
citation rate and that of other researchers, but between his citation rate and the impact factor of 
scientific journals. While both the total number and rate of citations to a researcher's published work 
are factors that may be considered in determining his or her acclaim and standing within the field, the 
statistics and metrics provided here, and the conclusions the Petitioner draws from them, do not 
provide an accurate or complete picture of his relative acclaim and standing in his field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner also focuses on the impact of individual papers he authored in addressing the 
significance of his contributions to the field of neuroscience. For four of those papers, he provides a 
brief summary, the impact factor of the journals in which they were published, and the number of other 
published papers which cite to them. He then refers to previously submitted reference letters which 
describe this research and its impact on the field. The first of these was written by.__ _____ ___, 
I pf O who has known him throughout his academic career and supervised his doctoral 
work. She states that durin his time in her lab, the Petitioner "discovered thq lthat 
speci fically.__ _______ ---.-----.-----,.------------1 which wi II be essential to the 
further development of this approach as a therapy." The Petitioner notes that this research was 
reported in a paper in the journal Molecular and Cellular Neuroscience in 2013, which had been cited 
to on more than 40 occasions at the time the petition was filed. 
Another letter referencin~ this same research was submitted by.__ ________ .....,.... __ '""'o""f-'t=h""'e 
University I ] who states that it was a "major contribution to the field o 
I I and "has received international acclaim and many citations in research papers, inc~l_u_d-in_g_t_h_o_s~e 
from my lab." However, he does not specify how the Petitioner's research has impacted his lab's 
research, or how his publication of "a recent important research review" evidences his international 
acclaim. 
Reference letters a,....d_d_r_es_s_in~_a_n_o_th_,er aspect of the Petitioner's research were writ;..:.t-=-en:..:......:b:...~c!:=======-
1 
I of niversit of A li'r'll-u..i....iu..J.1.l~..J..._--,___J andl 
I of the Universit of writes th~at_t_h_e_P_e_t-it-io_n_e_r-'s~ 
"extensive research int.._._ __ --.-..----.-1 in.__ _______ __. neuron development ... has been 
truly groundbreaking." She further states that her research group built on this research which led to a 
published research paper, and concludes that the Petitioner's research "has and will serve as the basis 
for important further work that could lead to an effective therapy forl.__ ___ ___, 
I t' I I writes that the Petitioner's finding "tha~ !regulates the 
development ofl I" was novel and has since been duplicated, and represents "an 
important paradigm shift in out understanding of this complex developmental process that will shape 
the future direction of this field and my own lab." 
The letters also note that the Petitioner has co-authored several review articles which were published 
in scientific journals, which account for four of his five most highly cited publications. I I 
states that one such review article "has become an essential resource for our field." In his 
letter,.__ _____ _. writes that "[B]y comprehensively reviewing and analyzing broad areas of 
neuroscience research, [the Petitioner] has provided the field with invaluable sources of information 
on essential research areas." Another letter, submitted by an associate editor for Journal of Neural 
Regenerative Research, indicates that from 2014-15, one of the review articles co-authored by the 
5 
Petitioner was the most cited article in the journal. We note that Clarivate Analytics, the source of the 
impact factor metrics analyzed above, notes on its website that "Review articles generally are cited 
more frequently than typical research articles because they often serve as surrogates for earlier 
literature ... " 1 
These letters indicate that the Petitioner's doctoral and post-doctoral research is original and has added 
to the understanding of processes related tol l allowing his fellow researchers in the 
field to build upon his work. In addition, as noted above, this work was recognized at the national 
level in 2016 through his receipt of the Early Career Investigator A ward froml I 
Also, the evidence indicates that his review articles have successfully compiled and analyzed the 
existing research in neuroscience in a way that other researchers have found to be useful. However, 
this evidence does not demonstrate that this work has placed him among the very small percentage of 
neuroscience researchers at the top of this field. Although the record shows that his work has been 
cited by other researchers in his field, the documentary information concerning impact factors 
emphasized by the Petitioner, analyzed above, is insufficient to establish that either the rate or total 
number of citations to his published research papers elevates his standing in the field to that level. 
And the award which recognized the excellence of his work at D specifically excludes more 
experienced researchers who may have spent years making contributions to the field of neuroscience. 
In addition, the record does not include evidence showing that his more recent work since joining 
I I as a research fellow in 2017 has received a 
similar level of acclaim. A letter from.__ ________ __.ofl bates 
that he has not worked with the Petitioner, but knows of his work in another lab at the school and 
provides a brief description. He describes this current research as "promising" and concludes that "it 
is likely that his work will lead to important advances in the field," but does not indicate that the 
Petitioner's recent work has already garnered acclaim at the national or international level. 
Further, the evidence regarding the Petitioner's service as a peer reviewer for three journals verifies 
his expertise as researcher in the field of neuroscience, but does not demonstrate that such a role is 
indicative of widespread acclaim or elevated standing within his field. A reference letter from the 
'--------~ The European Journal of Neuroscience notes that "we heavily rely on able and 
willing scientists to Rartake in the peer-review system," and that the Petitioner is a "well-qualified 
reviewer." SimilarlyJ I for the Journal of Neural Regenerative Research writes that 
the Petitioner was invited to review two manuscripts, and states that they are grateful to him for 
contributing his time and effort. Both of these letters demonstrate the voluntary nature of peer review 
work, and show that the Petitioner was recognized as a qualified expert in his field but not as one of 
the small percentage of neuroscience researchers at the top of the field. 
The record establishes that the Petitioner has been a productive researcher who has garnered acclaim 
at the national level for his doctoral research, but does not establish that a similar level of acclaim has 
been associated with his more recent work. It also does not show that his overall body of work thus 
far in his career places him among top researchers in the field of neuroscience. He seeks a highly 
restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top of their respective fields, rather 
1"The Clarivate Analytics Impact Factor," accessed at https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/essays/impact­
factor/#:-:text=The%20annual %20JCR %20impact%20factor,years%20( see%20F igure%201) on April 9, 2021. 
6 
than for individuals progressing toward the top. USCTS has long held that even athletes performing 
at the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary ability" standard. Matter of 
Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner has not shown that the 
significance of his work is indicative of the required sustained national or international acclaim or that 
it is consistent with a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. 
No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section 203(b )(l)(A) of the Act. Moreover, the record does 
not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered national or international acclaim in the field, 
and that he is one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See 
section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered 
as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7