dismissed EB-1A Case: Oceanography

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 22645775 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 14, 2023 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an oceanographer, 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 evidentiary requirement for this classification through 
evidence of a one-time achievement or by meeting three of the criteria at 8 C.F.R . § 204.5(h)(3) . The 
matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F .R. § 103 .3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability, a petitioner (or anyone on the 
petitioner's behalf) must establish that they : 
• Have extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics; 
• Seek to enter the United States to continue work in their area of extraordinary ability; and that 
• Their entry into the United States will prospectively substantially benefit the United States . 
Extraordinary ability must be demonstrated by evidence of sustained national or international acclaim 
as well as extensive documentation that their achievements have been recognized in the field . Section 
203(b )(1) of the Act. 
The implementing regulation further states that 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." It also 
sets forth a multi-part analysis. A petitioner can demonstrate international recogrnt1on of their 
achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized 
award). If such evidence is unavailable, then they must alternatively provide evidence that meets at 
least three of the ten listed criteria, which call for evidence about other awards they may have received, 
published material about them in qualifying media, and their authorship of scholarly articles, among 
other types of evidence. 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(2),(3). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination, assessing whether the record shows that the 
individual possesses the acclaim and recognition required for this highly exclusive immigrant visa 
classification. 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). 
TI. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a postdoctoral associate at the University ofl I She earned a Ph.D. in 
Oceanography from the University ofl in 2019, and states that she intends to continue 
pursuing research in the area of chemical oceanography in the United States. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that she received a major, internationally 
recognized award, she 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 her authorship of scholarly articles and participation as a 
judge of the work of others, and we agree. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director "violated 
proper adjudication procedures." After reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we find that she 
has not the initial evidentiary requirements for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
The Petitioner specifically notes on appeal that the Director used the incorrect gender pronoun when 
referring to her throughout the decision, and that she misidentified her field of endeavor as 
"cardiovascular and infectious diseases" at one point in the decision. Although these errors are 
regrettable and reflect a lack of care in the drafting of the decision, upon review we conclude that they 
were not material to the Director's decision. Notably, the Director twice correctly identified the 
Petitioner's field as oceanography, and specifically considered evidence which relates to that field. 
While the Petitioner's appeal does not address any further issues with the Director's decision, we will 
briefly consider the evidence she submitted under the third evidentiary criterion she claimed. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
"Contributions of major significance" connotes that a petitioner's work has significantly impacted the 
field. See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134. For example, a petitioner may show that the contributions 
2 
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. 
The Petitioner focused on two original contributions to the field of oceanography which she asserts 
are of major significance. The first of these is a revision she made to the I I software which 
allows for calculations of hydrogen sulfide and ammonia related parameters in freshwater and 
saltwater. This work was published in the journal Marine Chemistry in 2017, and the record shows 
that at the time of the Petitioner's response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE) it had been 
independently cited by other researchers in 15 articles. 1 She also submitted three articles published 
by other research groups which specifically note that they used her revised version of I Ito 
perform calculations in their research. Noting these citations, the Petitioner's postgraduate supervisor 
at the University of lstates in his 2020 reference letter that one group of 
researchers found her software to be "successful and accurate in its analysis." 
While this evidence shows that the Petitioner's software update has been successfully implemented 
by other researchers, it does not sufficiently show that this implementation is widespread in the field 
of oceanography or has otherwise been of major significance to the field. For example, the Petitioner 
has not submitted evidence to show that 15 independent citations to her paper describing this work 
indicates that it has remarkably impacted other oceanography researchers. Also, in discussing this 
aspect of the Petitioner's work>L..- of the University of !indicates 
that thel I software is popular and has been publicly available before the Petitioner introduced 
her revisions, and that these additions are broadly applicable and relevant to other researchers. But 
she refers to two of the three citing articles mentioned by Ito support this statement, and 
therefore does not expand upon the evidence of the significance of this original contribution. 
The second original contribution which the Petitioner focused on concerns her use of artificial 
intelligence to supplement the gathering of data on ocean acidification on the east coast of the United 
States. This work was published in Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans in 2020, and the record 
indicates that at the time of the Petitioner's RFE response it had been independently cited in four 
articles by other researchers. Also in that RFE response, the Petitioner submitted a chart from 
Clarivate Analytics showing citation rates for scientific papers by field and year, asserting that all three 
of her papers published in 2020 were at or above the 0.1 percentile in the field of 
"Environment/Ecology." However, we first note that it is not clear when this chart was published, as 
the only date that appears is the copywrite date of 2020. As the Petitioner based her assertion on her 
citation figures from November 2021, it is not apparent that the chart accurately portrays the percentile 
ranking of citations to her papers at that time. In addition, the citation figures in this field as portrayed 
in the chart show little difference between the 0.01 percentile (21) and the 50 percentile (1), and it is 
therefore not apparent that placement in the higher percentiles is indicative of a contribution of major 
significance . 
also commented on this aspect of the Petitioner's work in his 2020 letter, noting that another 
research group used her findings to support their own conclusions. But a relatively small degree of 
implementation or impact in a field does not generally indicate that an original contribution is of major 
significance. And while I !writes that the benefits of the Petitioner's research reach beyond the 
1 We do not include the citations in five papers authored by the Petitioner or one of her co-authors. 
3 
field of oceanography to the U.S. economy, those considerations are not relevant when determining 
the significance of her scientific contributions to the field. 
Aside from these specific original contributions, the Petitioner also asserted that her body of work in 
the field of oceanography was itself of major significance. For example, in her RFE response, the 
Petitioner asserted that the growth in the total number of citations to her work was evidence of the 
significant impact of her work in the field, and compared her total number of citations to that of other 
early-career researchers. However, this criterion focuses on the significance of specific contributions 
to a field, as opposed to the final merits determination which requires evidence of recognition, acclaim 
and standing in the field. Whereas the former may be shown in part through citations relating to a 
specific contribution, the latter may be reflected in the entire body of a researcher's work, including 
their total number and rate of citation. Therefore, the evidence comparing the total citations of other 
researchers to the Petitioner's is not relevant to the analysis under this criterion. 
Another set of evidence submitted by the Petitioner in support of this criterion were articles which 
reported on research projects in which she was involved. These articles were published on the websites 
and social media of the organizations through which the research was conducted, such as the 
University of and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The 
Petitioner asserted that these types of articles report "only featured researches with significant 
contributions," but she did not submit evidence in support of this assertion. While the articles and 
related evidence verify the Petitioner's participation in this research, they do not aid in establishing 
that her work was of major significance to the field of oceanography. 
Finally, we note that others in addition tol !submitted reference letters in support of the petition. 
For example, Institute of Marine Science notes that her 
research group cited to the Petitioner's work on the levels of carbon dioxide in the I 
and like discussed the economic and environmental benefits of her work. And I I of the U.S. Geological Survey commented on the Petitioner's research involving a chemical 
method of determining past water temperatures from coral skeletons, concluding that these studies 
evidence "scientific rigor and global significance." But while these letters highlight the importance 
of the Petitioner's research, they do not help to establish that it has been of major significance to the 
field of oceanography. 
For all of the reasons given above, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that her original 
scientific contributions are of major significance in her field, and therefore she does not meet 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, we have reviewed 
the entire record and conclude that it does not establish that the Petitioner has the acclaim and 
recognition required for the classification sought. 
4 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than for those 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 T&N Dec. 953,954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner 
has not shown that the significance of her 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. l 0 1-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section 203(b )( 1 )(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 she is one of the small percentage who have 
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). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5