dismissed EB-1A Case: Ophthalmology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 6891883 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 14, 2020 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner , a research scientist in the field of ophthalmology , seeks classification as an individual 
of extraordinary ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(1 )(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 Petitioner established 
that she met only two of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for the requested classification, of which 
she must meet at least three. The Director further found that the Petitioner did not establish that her 
entry will substantially benefit prospectively the United States . 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims that she meets a third evidentiary criterion and is otherwise eligible 
for the benefit sought. 
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)(l) 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 sustained 
acclaim and the 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 
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). 
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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a research scientist in the field of ophthalmology. She received her doctor of 
medicine and her master of science in ophthalmology froml I University inl I 
China, in 1993 and 1996, respectively. She complete! post-dlctoral research at the Univysity ol 
\ I and has held several positions at the Institute of Ophthalmology, 
0 
I Hospital, including physician-in-charge, assistant professor, associate professor, and head 
of stem cell research. At the time of filing, she was employed as a research scientist at the University 
of1 I Health Science Center. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that she has 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 only two of the initial evidentiary 
criteria, judging the work of others in her field and authorship of scholarly articles. See 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi). The Petitioner's documentary evidence indicates that she has peer-reviewed 
manuscripts for several journals including Current Eye Research, Molecular Vision, Journal of Ocular 
Pharmacology and Therapeutics, and Journal of Neuro-Oncology. 
In addition, the record contains evidence that the Petitioner has authored scholarly articles published 
in journals including Molecular Vision, PLoS ONE, Chinese Journal of Ophthalmology, and Acta 
Ophthalmologica. Accordingly, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner fulfilled the 
requirements of the judging and scholarly articles criteria. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that 
she also satisfies the requirements of the criterion relating to original contributions of major 
significance in her field. 1 
1 We note that the Director determined that the Petitioner claimed, but did not establish, that she meets the criterion related 
to receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in her field. See 8 C.F.R. ~ 
204.5(h)(3)(i). On appeaL the Petitioner does not contest the Director's finding that she does not meet this criterion or 
offer additional arguments. Therefore, we consider this issue to be abandoned. See Sepulveda v. U.S. AttJJ Gen., 401 F.3d 
1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2005); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *l, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 
30, 2011) (the court found the plaintiffs claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO). 
2 
After reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we find that the Petitioner has not established that 
she satisfies at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria. 
Evidence of the individual's original scientific, 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 meet this criterion, a petitioner must establish that not only have they made original 
contributions but that they have been of major significance in the field.2 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. 
Counsel claimed in an introductory letter that the Petitioner has made several original contributions of 
major significance in the field, as evidenced by her published research, citation record, and letters from 
experts in the field. These areas ofresearch were initially summarized as follows: 3 (1) she established 
that the acts as an anti-cataract agent; (2) she identified the positive feedback role 
of ·n lens epithelial cells, which has implications for the 
prevention of a condition known as posterior ca sular o acification (PCO , a com lication of cataract 
removal surgery; and (3) she reported that.__ _________________ __, cells 
I I implanted into the vitreous cavity in mice can reduce the abnormal retinal 
~---;:::======-1=·n:....:t:.::h:..::.e....::,oxygen-induced retinopathy model, suggesting thatl bare helpful for 
the ........,=-------____,,~__.retinal vessels. 
The Petitioner provided evidence reflecting the originality of her research through expert opinion 
letters offering praise for her expertise and contributions. However, the authors of the letters do not 
explain why her original research is indicative of major significance. 4 In general, the letters recount 
the Petitioner's research and findings, indicate their publication in journals, and generally point to the 
citation of her work by others. Although they reflect the novelty of her work and comment on its 
potential for further research and clinical application, they do not show how her research and findings 
have been considered of major importance and how their impact on the field rises to the level required 
by this criterion. 
Two of the submitted expert opinion letters commented on the Petitioner's studies establishing that 
the I I can ameliorate the rapid progression of I I cataract in 
rats. For exampleJ I professor emerita of biomedical sciences at the University of 
I I describes cataract as the leading cause of visual impairment, provides statistics 
regarding its prevalence, briefly summarizes the Petitioner's study onl I in rats, 
2 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJJ-14 8-9 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html (stating that although funded and published work may be 
"original," this fact alone is not sufficient to establish that the work is of major significance). 
3 On a ea!, counsel identifies a fourth ori inal contribution, notin that the Petitioner has ' 
The record reflects that the Petitioner's research in this area was accepted for publication by The American Journal for 
Pathology inc:=]2018, subsequent to the filing of the petition in August 2017. The Petitioner must establish that all 
eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time of the filing and continuing through 
adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
4 Although we do not discuss every letter submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
3 
and concludes that the Petitioner's research "has a significant impact on the prevention ofi~---~ 
I I cataract, as well as to other diseases." This same conclusion is repeated 
verbatim in a letter from f Medical School's I I Research 
Institute. However, neither.__ __ _. nor,__ ___ __, farther elaborated on why the Petitioner's 
research in this area is considered to be a majorly significant contribution in the field by explaining, 
for example, how it has already impacted their shared field or describing specific applications that are 
attributed to the Petitioner's original work, which was published between 1998 and 2003. 
The 1 r fr ml I both address another area of the Petitioner's original research 
notin that she was "the first one to identify that thel I signaling ofl ;I with 
.__ __________ ____, in human and rabbit lens epithelials is mediated b~ .__ _____ __, 
Both authors farther summarize the Petitioner's research findings and reach identical conclusions that 
her study "has si&nificant impact on both clinical and basic research for the prevention of PCO." D I I of[ I Biotechnology also generally referenced the 
Petitioner's "work in lens area," noting that she published multiple papers related to this topic, and 
that "their ilmportrce and applied potentials have drawn great attention" and have been "well accepted 
and cited." states that that "the scientific impact anl potentill practical benefits are huge in [the 
Petitioner's] research study." However, neithd l nor I I sufficiently detailed in 
what ways the Petitioner has advanced the state of research in this research or clinical area or 
elaborated on how the Petitioner's work has already impacted the wider field, much less had a "huge 
impact." 
The Petitioner also provided letters that address her research into I I treatments for retinal 
,__ __ _.!disease and injury. I I notes that the Petitioner was "the first one to report that I I 
implanted into the vitreous cavity in mice reduced the abnormal retinal in the 
oxvqen-induced retinopathy model" and also "facilitated the improvement of.__ ____ ........, __ ___,, 
and l I of neurogenic factors so that the loss of photoreceptors was hindered.",__ _ __, 
states that "the excitin results from [the Petitioner's] studies can potentially open the possibility for 
al I therapy o etino athies in patients to increase their vision." 5 I lof 
the University o~ l,__ __ ___.Medical Faculty, also discusses this area ofresearc
1, noting I 
that the Petitioner's results "may be of profound importance for the therapy of diseases such as 
retinopathy." Likel , lhe states that "thf exciting results from [the Petitioner's] studies can 
potentially open the possibility for al . therapy" of retinal diseases. 
The Petitioner also provided a letter from I f of thel I Institute of Ophthalmology. 
He provides a very brief overview of the Petitioner's areas of research interest and describes her as "a 
pioneering researcher working in the area of ophthalmology" who "has made significant impact in this 
area," "has had a significant impact in the international scientific community" and whose research "is 
of great significance." 
sc=J also addresses a second I I study in which they collaborated with the Petitioner, although it was not included 
amon the ori inal contributions hi hli hted in the cover letter accom an in the initial submission. The study, titled 
'-------r--.----------------,----,-------;=====o.......:..:w..::ca::....s .,:;.u::cb:...:..:;lished in Acta 
Ophthalmologica. describes it as providing "a promising.__~..,......... to improve.__ ______ _. in eyes with 
I I retinopathies" but does not further address how the study was of major significance in the field. 
4 
The letters considered above primarily contain general attestations of the novelty, utility and potential 
impact of the Petitioner's research studies without providing specific examples of contributions that 
rise to a level consistent with major significance. Letters that specifically articulate how a petitioner's 
contributions are of major significance to the field and its impact on subsequent work add value. 6 
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. 7 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 widely implemented or relied upon by others in the field or establish that 
the Petitioner's work has had a demonstrable impact on the wider field commensurate with a 
contribution of major significance. 
The Petitioner also submits her publication and citation record from Google Scholar and from the 
China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) China Integrated Knowledge Resources System, 
which provides comparable information for Chinese language publications that cite to her work. 8 But 
this evidence does not show that the impact of her work on the overall field of ophthalmology or 
related fields rises to the level of an original 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." We acknowledge, however, that a petitioner 
may present evidence that his articles "have provoked widespread commentary or received notice from 
others working in the field, or entries (particularly a goodly number) in a citation index which cite 
[her] work as authoritative in the field, may be probative of the significance of [her] contributions to 
the field of endeavor." 9 
Here, the Petitioner has not provided evidence that would, for example, allow us to compare her 
citations for individual articles to other similarly, highly cited articles that the field views as having 
been of major significance. Further, highly-cited publications alone are not sufficient under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that they were of "major significance," as the number of citations for 
a given article often does not provide sufficient context to establish the impact or importance of a 
given researcher's work in the field. That context must be provided by other evidence in the record. 
The Petitioner has demonstrated that her most cited article is 
.__ _______________________________ __. published in 
Molecular Vision in 2007, which has more than twice as many citations as her next most cited article. 
While the Petitioner submitted corroborating evidence in the form of expert opinion letters that briefly 
6 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9. 
7 Id. at 9. 
8 Further, we note that evidence that summarizes citations to the Petitioner's entire body of published work, and claims 
that her overall citation rate is high, do not demonstrate that any specific work of hers is so widely cited and relied upon 
that it is considered to have made a major impact in her field. Comparison of the Petitioner's cumulative citations to others 
in the field is often more appropriate in determining whether the record shows sustained national or international acclaim 
and demonstrates that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor in a final merits 
determination. 
9 Id. at 8. 
5 
address her research in this area, that evidence, for the reasons already discussed, is not sufficient to 
establish that the Petitioner's research is regarded as an original contribution of major significance that 
has remarkably impacted or influenced his field. 
Further, the record indicates that the cover letter accompanying the Petitioner's submission included 
excerpts of published articles that cited to her work 10 in support of her claim that other scientists have 
relied on her research for the purpose of explaining their results, designing their studies, or for 
comparison or confirmation purposes. A review of those excerpts, though, does not show the 
significance of the Petitioner's research to the overall field beyond the authors who cited to her work. 
For instance, the Petitioner provided an excerpt from an article titled '------------~ I I published in Seminars in Cell & Developmental Biology. The author cites to the 
Petitioner's work to su ort her statement that 
...,...._ _________________________ __, .... " and '---------~ 
'---------------------~ " However, the article does not distinguish or 
highlight the Petitioner's written work from the other papers cited in the article, of which there appear 
to be at least 129. As a result, the Petitioner has not shown how her published original research has 
made an impact that rises to the level of "major significance" consistent with this regulatory criterion. 
Counsel also emphasizes that the Petitioner's publications have been cited in several book chapters 
and review articles, noting that "[t]hese books and articles serve to inform the scientific community of 
major breakthroughs in the field, demonstrating the significance of [the Petitioner's outstandin 
research." Counsel's letter included an excerpt from one of these articles, titled '------...,,....-~ 
I. 0 J" published bvl I in Seminars in Cell & 
Developmental Biology. While the inclusion of the Petitioner's research in this and other review 
articles is noted, the record did not provide sufficient support for counsel's suggestion that such 
inclusion is indicative of a "major breakthrough" that has remarkably impacted the field, as such 
articles may cite to dozens or even hundreds of papers. We can cannot determine that every 
publication cited in a review article is indicative of an original contribution of major significance, and 
the evidence does not distinguish the Petitioner's publications from the many others cited. 
On appeal, counsel refers to several of our non-precedent decisions concerning scientific researchers 
who petitioned under this classification. These decisions were not published as precedents and 
therefore do not bind USCIS officers in future adjudications. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c). Non-precedent 
decisions apply existing law and policy to the specific facts of the individual case, and may be 
distinguishable based on the evidence in the record of proceedings, the issues considered, and 
applicable law and policy. Nevertheless, we have reviewed the decisions although we will not discuss 
each one separately. Counsel emphasizes that the referenced non-precedent decisions demonstrate 
that we have previously "acknowledged and confirmed the value of the citation record and considered 
the independent citation itself as solid evidence for the influence of the petitioner's work." However, 
the non-precedent decisions also highlight the fact that we placed significant weight on the statements 
of experts who clearly described how the petitioners' scientific contributions were both original and 
10 It appears based on the limited excerpts provided that all of the excerpted articles cited her 2006 article titled ~ 
' 
published in Molecular Vision. On appeal, the Petitioner submits partial copies of several articles that cite this a11icle and 
other articles that she co-authored. 
6 
of major significance in their field. The expert opinion letters submitted in this matter did not contain 
sufficient probative analysis regarding the major significance of the Petitioner's contributions. 
Considered together, the evidence - consisting of the citations to the Petitioner's published findings, 
the Petitioner's citation history, and the reference letters from experts in her field - establishes that she 
is an accomplished scientist. The Petitioner has been productive as a researcher and has published 
original research, producing data and findings have been relied upon by others in their own research. 
However, the record does not demonstrate that the Petitioner has made a contribution of major 
significance in the field of ophthalmological research. Therefore, she has not met 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 advise that we 
have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a finding that the 
Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals 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 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. 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 she is one of the small percentage who has risen to 
the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act and 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
In addition, as the Petitioner has not established her extraordinary ability under section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) 
of the Act, we need not determine whether her "entry to the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States" under section 203(b )(1 )(A)(iii) and will not address the Directors' 
separate finding with respect to that issue. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated her 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