dismissed EB-1A Case: Neuroscience

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF S-M-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 27. 2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140. IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a neuroscientist researcher. seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary 
ability in the sciences. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )( 1 )(A). 8 U .S.C. 
§ 1 I 53(b)( 1 )(A). This first preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who 
can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and 
whose achievements have been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the Form I-140. Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker. concluding that the Petitioner had met only two of the ten initial evidentiary criteria. of 
which she must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and contends that she meets seven criteria. 
Upon de novo 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 Ill 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 two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
.
;\Jaffer olS-Af-
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate a one-time achievement (that is a major. 
internationally recognized award). Alternatively, he or she must provide documentation that meets 
at least three of the ten categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5(h)(3 )(i Hx) (including items 
such as awards, memberships. and published material in certain media). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements. we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merit s determination and assess whether the record shovis sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small perc entage 
at the very top of the tield of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS. 596 F.3d It 15 (9th Cir. 20 l 0) 
(discussing a two-part review where the documentation is tirst coun ted and then. if fulfilling the 
required number of criteria. considered in the context of a tinal merits determination): .\ee also 
V;s;nscaia \'. Beers. 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D .D.C. 2013 ): Rija/ v. [J:r;;CJ.). 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W .O. Wash. 2011 ). This two-step analysis is consistent \~~v· ith 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 \vhether the fact to be prov en is 
probably true.'' Matter q(Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369. 376 (AAO 201 0). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a neuroscientist researcher. As she has no t established that she has received a 
m3:1or, internationally recognized award. she must satisfy at least three of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Director found that the Petitioner met the judging criterion at 8 C.F .R. 
~ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and the authorship of scholarly articles criterion at 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3 )(vi). On 
appeal, the Petitioner asserts that she also meets the following criteria : awards at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) , membership at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). published material at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii), original contributions of major significance at 8 C.F.R. ~ 204 .5(h)(3)( v). and 
display at 8 C.F .R. § 204 .5(h)(3)(vii) . Upon review. \ve conclude that the evidence in the record 
does not support a finding that the Petitioner meets the plain language requirement s of at least three 
criteria. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Documentation ofthe alien's receipt ol/esser nationally or internationally recognized prizes 
or m1 · ard~fiH· excell ence in thefield of'endeavor. 8 C.F.R . § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The Petitioner submitted documentation showing that the 
awarded her a research grant in 2011, which was renewed in 2012. The letter from the which 
awarded her the first installment of the grant indicates that the Petitioner requested this through a 
grant proposal. The Petitioner states that this is equival ent to a research a·ward because it was based 
upon her research abilities compared to others in her field. An email behveen the Petitioner and the 
assistant secretary for the indicates that the organization received 40 grant requests in 2011 
and approved 20. and in 2012 it received 20 renewal requests and approved 8. While this evidence 
2 
.
Matter ofS-M-
shows that the Petitioner was in the upper half of those whose grant proposals were approved, the 
record does not sufficiently demonstrate that this grant is a nationally or internationally recognized 
award for excellence in the field. 
The record also contains research documentation that the Petitioner submitted as grant applications 
to the and the 
but the evidence does not demonstrate that these grants were awarded or that they 
constitute a nationally or internationally recognized prize for excellence in the lield. 
ln her brief. the Petitioner cites to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) which states that she may submit 
comparable evidence to establish eligibility if a criterion does not readily apply to her occupation. 
The Petitioner then requests consideration of her 2004 nomination by the 
of the award. We decline to do so. as she has not 
demonstrated why this criterion does not apply to her occupation. Additionally, a nomination ditlers 
from the receipt of an a\vard, which the plain language of the regulation requires. The record does 
not establish that her 2004 nomination equates to a nationally or internationally recognized av.'arcl. 
Therefore, the Petitioner has not established that she may submit comparable evidence and she has 
not demonstrated that she has satisfied the plain language of this criterion. 
Documental ion olthe alien's membership in associations in the.fieldjhr lrhich class{jication 
is sought. lrhich require oulslanding achievemenls (?ltheir members. a.~'judged hy recognized 
national or internalional exper/.'i in their disciplines or fields 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii ). 
The record indicates that the Petitioner has membership in the the 
and the The Petitioner submits a 
list of these organizations in '"hich she claims membership, but the record does not contain 
documentation verifying her membership or that establishing that these associations require 
outstanding achievements of its members. Therefore. the Petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or mc~jor trade publica/ions or oJher major 
media, relaling to the alien's lWJrk in the.fleldfhr which class{ficalion is sough!. ,\'uch eridence 
shall include I he Ntle, dale. and author o(lhe mater;a!, and any necessary translation . 8 C.F.R. 
~ 204.5(h)(3 )(iii). 
The Petitioner submitted an article entitled, · in the fall 2012 issue of 
journaL published by This article discusses how the 
takes part in the vision research at the and identifies the specific research 
conducted by the Petitioner in this capacity. The article contains a short description of the 
Petitioner's research regarding the changes in retinal function that occur when a certain protein 
molecule has been blocked during postnatal development. While this constitutes published material 
about the Petitioner, the record does not establish that the journal is a protessional or major 
.
Malter l~(S-M-
trade publication or other major media . The Petitioner states that while is not a major trade 
journaL it is "well circulated.. among Visual Ophthalmologist s;' and constitutes "major 
print/electronic media :· The Petitioner does not provide corroborating evidence of its readership or 
other evidence demonstrating that this journal constitutes either a professional journal or major 
media. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established that she meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence oft he alien's participation . either individual(v or on a panel. as ajud~e of" the work 
of" others in the same or an allied field o{ .\pec(fication f(Jr which classification is sought. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The Petitioner offers evidence that she sits on the editorial board for the journal A-latters. We 
conclude therefore that the Petitioner meets the requirements of this criterion. 
Evidence (~l the alien ·s original scienrijic, scholarly. artisti c. athletic. or husiness-related 
contributions {)/"major sign~ficance in the field. 8 C.F .R. § 204 .5(h)(3)(v). 
This regulatory criterion contains multiple evidentiary elements that the Petitioner must satisfy. The 
first is evidence of the Petitioner's contributions in her field. These contributions must have already 
been realized rather than being potentiaL future contributions. She must also demonstrate that her 
contributions are original. The documentation must establish that the contributions are scientitic, 
scholarly, artistic, athletic. or business-related in nature. The tina! requirement is that the 
contributions must rise to the level of major significance in the field as a whole, rather than to a 
project or to an organization. The phrase ''major significance'' is not superfluous. See Silverman , .. 
Eastrich Multiple Invest or Fund. L.P .. 51 F. 3d 28, 31 (3d Cir. 1995), quoted in APWU v. !'otter. 
343 F.3d 619. 626 (2d Cir. 2003). Contributions of major significance connote that the Petitioner 's 
work has significantly impacted the tield. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v); see also Visinscaia v. 
Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126. 134 (D .D.C. 2013). To establish her eligibility under this criterion, the 
Petitioner submits letter s from colleagues and compares her citation record to others in her field 
whom she claims have been classified as individuals of extraordinary ability. 
In a letter, Professor of Ophthalmology and Visual Science at 
asserts that the Petitioner has "worked on project s s uch as biophysical studies of neuronal ion 
channels (the basis of signaling in neurons) and characterization of glycine receptors in the mouse 
retina (a key mechani sm for processing of the retina image).'' fmiher indicates that the 
she "has worked under internationally respected experts in the field of biophysics and retinal 
physiology and contributed to important new discoveries.'' While positive, this letter does not 
identify specific contributions attributable to the Petitioner, nor does it describe what impact her 
work has had on the field. 
A letter from . Director of the 
discusses seve ral of the Petitioner · s findings in the field. He indicates that the Petition er 
"established a new molecul ar memory mechanism inherent to voltage gated sodium channels and 
threw light on the role s of glycine receptors in the synaptic inhibitory mechanisms in the mouse 
4 
.
Malter 4S-M-
retina.'' Similarly, Professor and Head of the Division of Neurobiology at the 
attests to the Petitioner"s work in the field and states that the ''[the 
Petitioner· s] reputation continues to grow·· and that her ''exceptional abilities and outstanding work 
continue to impress those who come in contact with her.'' While indicative of the originality of the 
Petitioner's work, these letters fail to document its impact on the t"ield. 
The Petitioner compares her citation levels with those of tour colleagues. two of whom she claims 
obtained classification in the extraordinary ability category. We note that detenninations or 
eligibility are made after a comprehensive review of the record and no single factor, such as number 
of citations, is dispositive. Thus, the Petitioner· s anecdotal comparison to other petitioners is 
inapposite. Publication of scholarly articles is but one of the factors considered in determining 
whether one has demonstrated original contributions of major significance in the field. Without 
corroborating evidence to provide context the number of citations alone does not indicate the 
originality or significance of an individual's contributions. Here. while we acknowledge that the 
Petitioner has made original discoveries, the record does not demonstrate what impact her work has 
had on the field. Therefore, the evidence in the record does not establish that she meets this 
criterion. 
Evidence (~{the alien's authorship of scholarly art ides in the field. in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
The Petitioner submits evidence of her authorship of scholarly articles in journals such as the 
and others in the field, including a 
report stating significant levels of citations to her work. Accordingly, we find that the 
Petitioner meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the display (?(the alien's ·work in the field at artistic exhihitions or shmt•case.~.·. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3 }(vii). 
The Petitioner contends that her illustrated research figures. which were placed on the front page of 
the in 2009, satisfy this requirement She provides evidence ofthisjournal's 
prestige in the field. However, the record does not demonstrate that the academic journal"s cover 
represents an artistic showcase or exhibition. Furthermore, the evidence does not retlect that these 
illustrations discussed by the Petitioner amount to an artistic display of her work in the field. The 
Petitioner therefore has not established that she meets this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner is not eligible because she has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a 
qualifying one-time achievement or documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria listed at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Thus, we do not need to fully address the totality of the materials in a 
final merits determination. Kazarian , 596 F .3d at 119-20. Nevertheless, we advise that we have 
Mafler ofS-M-
reviewed the record in the aggregate. concluding that it does not support a tinding that the Petitioner 
has the level of expertise required for the classification sought. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter olS-M-. JD# 919818 (AAO Feb. 27, 20 18)