dismissed EB-1A Case: Pharmaceutical Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 7122759 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 29, 2020 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner , a pharmaceutical company, seeks to classify the Beneficiary as an individual 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition concluding that although the 
Beneficiary satisfied three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, as required, the Petitioner did not 
establish her sustained national or international acclaim and demonstrate that she is among the small 
percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. The Director further found that the Petitioner did 
not establish that the Beneficiary would be continuing to work in her area of extraordinary ability in 
the United States. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that it established by a preponderance of the evidence that the 
Beneficiary qualifies as an individual of extraordinary ability and maintains that the Director failed to 
consider the totality of the evidence. 
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 a 
beneficiary's 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 it 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) 
( 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). 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, a publicly-traded pharmaceutical company with a portfolio ofl f drug 
candidates, employs the Beneficiary as its I I I I Chief of Staff to its CEO. 1 .__ _________________ ____. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that the Beneficiary has received a major, 
internationally recognized award, it must establish that she satisfies 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 the following three criteria: judging the work of others in 
her field under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv); authorship of scholarly articles under 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(vi); and performing in a leading or critical role under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). The 
record reflects that the Beneficiary served as a peer reviewer for at least one manuscript submitted for 
publication to a professional journal and co-chaired al I Seminar in her area of 
1 The Beneficiary's job title at the time of filing was.__ _______________ __. and Chief of 
Staff to the CEO." The record reflects that she received a promotion to the "Associate Director" position in Febrnary 2019 
shortly after the petition was filed. 
2 
expertise, and therefore satisfied the criterion related to judging. In addition, the Petitioner provided 
evidence that the Beneficiary has authored scholarly articles published in journals including Cancer 
Research, Journal of Biological Chemistry, and Nature Medicine. 
Finally, we agree with the Director's determination that the Beneficiary satisfies the criterion related 
to leading or critical roles based on her employment with the Petitioner. The Petitioner has provided 
detailed information explaining the Beneficiary's role, its influence on management decision-making, 
and its resulting impact on the outcome of the organization's activities. Further, the Petitioner 
submitted sufficient evidence to establish that it enjoys a distinguished reputation in its industry. 
Because the Petitioner has demonstrated that she satisfies three criteria, we will evaluate the totality 
of the evidence in the context of the final merits determination below. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the Petitioner submitted the requisite initial evidence, we will evaluate whether it has demonstrated, 
by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Beneficiary has achieved sustained national or 
international acclaim, that she is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, 
and that her achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. In a 
final merits determination, we analyze a beneficiary's accomplishments and weigh the totality of the 
evidence to determine if her successes are sufficient to demonstrate that she has extraordinary ability 
in the field of endeavor. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also 
Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 2 
The record reflects that the Beneficiary received her bachelor of technolo harmaceutical 
chemistry and technology from the University of--------~------~ in 2010. 
In 2015, she received her doctor of philosophy in~ ______ ,......from the University ofi I 
at I L where she was the recipient of several scholarships and fellowships for academic 
excellence and research progress. While engaged in her studies she held internships with I I 
(2008) andl 1(2013). After completing her Ph.D., the Beneficiary 
worked as a postdoctoral research associate at I !Medicine from 2015 to 2016. The 
Petitioner then hired the Beneficiary in 2016 and, as noted, employed her as its.__ ______ __. 
~------------~ at the time it filed the petition. 
As mentioned above, the Director found that the Beneficiary has judged the work of others within her 
field, authored scholarly articles, and holds a leading or critical role within the petitioning company. 
We have also considered other relevant evidence such as the Beneficiary's awards, her membership 
in a professional association, and the recognition she has received based on her original scientific 
contributions to her field. The record, however, does not demonstrate that her achievements are 
reflective of a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 
101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). 
2 See also USCTS 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 ADI 1-14 4 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html (stating that USCIS officers should then evaluate the 
evidence together when considering the petition in its entirety to determine if the petitioner has established by a 
preponderance of the evidence the required high level of expertise of the immigrant classification). 
3 
Regarding the Beneficiary's service as a judge of the work of others in her field, an evaluation of the 
significance of her experience is appropriate to determine if such evidence is indicative of the 
extraordinary ability required for this highly restrictive classification. See Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 
1121-22. The record reflects that the Beneficiary completed one manuscript review for the Journal of 
Biological Chemistry in 201 7. The Petitioner also provided evidence that she was offered an honorary 
position on the editorial board of International Physiology Journal, although the record does not 
reflect whether she accepted this position. Participation in the peer review process does not 
automatically demonstrate that an individual has sustained national or international acclaim at the very 
top of her field. Without evidence that sets her apart from others in his field, such as evidence that she 
has a consistent history of completing a substantial number of review requests relative to others, or 
served in editorial positions for distinguished journals or publications, the Petitioner has not 
established that the Beneficiary's peer review experience places her among that small percentage at 
the very top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The Petitioner emphasizes that the Beneficiary also judged the work of her peers based on her 
appointment as co-chair of the 2016 I I Seminar c=J) on I I, which 
required her to evaluate the posters and oral presentations of potential participants. The Petitioner 
maintains that the conferences and seminars organized by I I are 
"some of the most prestigious in the scientific community" and that "only the top scientists from 
around the world are invited to D: events." Several of the submitted expert opinion letters comment 
on the Beneficiary'sOco-chairing experience. For example,! I of the University 
of Dstates that "[b ]eing elected to chair ac=] is an extremely prestigious feat for any scientist 
and is reflective of the high regard for [the Petitioner's scientific accom lish~ within her peer 
group and the scientific community." Further,.__ _______ _. of L_J states that the 
Beneficiary'sc=Jco-chair role was "an extremely prestigious feat for a scientist at her level." 
The Petitioner provided the itinerary from the D event that the Beneficiary co-chaired, which is 
described in the materials as "a unique forum for graduate students, post-docs, and other scientists 
with comparable levels of experience and education." The description indicates that the D was 
held in conjunction with the i I and that the conference and seminar events have 
separate applications. This evidence, indicating that attendance at the seminar event isr1,im.4:ed to 
students and less experienced scientists, does not support the Petitioner's claim that the L_J is an 
exclusive invitation-only event reserved for re tof◄ scientists in a specific field. The record does not, 
for example, include information from the outlining their criteria for evaluatin~electing 
potential c::::J chairs. 3 We acknowledge that the Petitioner's selection as co-chair for a l__Jevent is 
a notable professional accomplishment and indicates that she has received recognition from the 
scientific community in her area of research. Howeverf the ridence related to this role is insufficient 
to support a finding that her experience chairing one session is indicative of her being in the 
3 We note that the website of--~-------- indicates that its seminar programs are "organized by and for 
young investigators" and provide "a way to interact with leaders who may later serve as mentors." See https:/A O ) 
(last accessed on Jan. 27, 2020). This information suggests that the chairs selected to organize the seminar events are also 
young investigators, similar to the graduate students and postdoctoral associates who attend them. We also note that the 
main page of th.c::=] indicates that the organization has over 3001 levents scheduled for 2020, suggesting 
that hundreds of scientists chair or co-chair these events annually. 
4 
small percentage at the very top of her field, nor does it not demonstrate she has enjoyed national or 
international acclaim based on her role in co-chairing this two-day event. 
Likewise, the Beneficiary's publication of scientific research does not automatically place her at the 
top of the field. The Petitioner emphasized that the Beneficiary published six papers in leading peer­
reviewed journals, authored two invited book chapters and a review article, and has been invited to 
deliver several oral presentations at conferences. 4 The Petitioner, however, has not demonstrated that 
this publication record is consistent with having a "career of acclaimed work." H.R. Rep. No. at 59. 
As authoring scholarly articles is often inherent to the work of scientists and researchers, the citation 
history or other evidence of the influence of the Beneficiary's articles can be an indicator to determine 
the impact and recognition that her work has had on the field and whether such influence has been 
sustained. For example, numerous independent citations for an article authored by the Beneficiary 
may provide solid evidence that her work has been recognized and that other researchers have been 
influenced by it. Such an analysis at the final merits determination stage is appropriate pursuant to 
Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1122. At the time of filing, the Petitioner offered evidence that the 
Beneficiary's most-cited articles had been cited 46 and 41 times, respectively. While the citations, 
both individually and collectively, show that field has noticed her work, she did not establish that such 
rates of citation are sufficient to demonstrate a level of interest commensurate with sustained national 
or international acclaim in her field. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. Moreover, the Petitioner 
did not show that the citations to her research represent attention at a level consistent with being among 
small percentage at the very top of her field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that, particularly for a relatively young scientist, "it is not helpful to 
compare various scientists' total citations, because this type of analysis does not take into account the 
scientists' differing sub-areas of specialty or their career paths." Further, the Petitioner claims that 
"there is no true comparison to another one of [the Beneficiary's] peers because her work launched a 
new, unique area of researching concerning the role of I I in 
cancer." The Petitioner emphasizes that the quality of the citations to her work demonstrates the 
impact of her research and establishes that she is at the very top of the field. 
The Petitioner places particular emphasis on the publication of the Beneficiary' sl ~related 
research in Cancer Research and Journal of Biological Chemistry, and the fact that she was invited to 
contribute a co-authored book chapter to J I Biology and Pathobiology (3rd Edition), which 
was edited by a Nobel Prize laureate in this field. The Petitioner provides evidence that Can~ 
Research is ranked in the top 8% of all oncology journals in impact factor and emphasizes that LJ 
I I confirmed that the Beneficiary was the first c=Jgraduate student to publish a first-
authored paper in that journal in 16 years. I I's letter also notes that Journal of Biological 
Chemistry is "a prestigious highly cited journal" that is "known to have published one of the most 
highly cited articles of all time." 
The record reflects that the Beneficiar 's co-authored article ' 
,__ ________________________ _, was highlighted by Journal of 
4 The Beneficiary's submitted Google Scholar citation history included 17 publications authored by her between 2011 and 
2017. The six peer-reviewed research aiiicles referenced in the Petitioner's letter, along with the Beneficiary's co-authored 
review article and one of her book chapters, are the publications that have received multiple citations from others. Of the 
remaining nine publications listed, one a11icle had one citation, and the rest had no citations. 
5 
Biological Chemistry as a "Paper of the Week" which according to the publication's website means 
that it was selected by the editors "as representing the top 2% of JBC papers in overall importance." 
While this is a notable distinction for the paper, it does not lead to a conclusion that all of the papers' 
authors were similarly recognized as being at the top of the field. Notably, the record contains 
evidence thatc=]s website published an article titled ~--------------~which 
focuses on the research published in the Petitioner's 2013 Journal of Biological Chemistry article. 
This same article was published on the websites News Medica (news-medica.net) and Science Daily 
(sciencedaily.com), but the evidence does not demonstrate that the Beneficiary herself has garnered 
substantial acclaim from this research. The article attributes the discovery of "a new role for n I t to I I ... and co-workers" and contains multiple quotes from .... I---~--' 
regarding the study's findings. Although the Beneficiary contributed to the research and is 
acknowledged as a co-author, the media reports do not single her out or specifically acknowledge her 
for her findings. Here, the Petitioner did not establish that the "Paper of the Week" distinction or 
media coverage reflects that her original scientific contribution garnered her significant attention or 
indicates her status as an individual who has received "sustained national or international acclaim and 
whose achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation." See section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. 
Further, publication in a highly ranked journal in-and-of-itself: however, does not indicate a 
petitioner's sustained national or international acclaim; rather, the high ranking or impact factor is 
reflective of the publication's overall citation rate. It does not, however, show the influence of any 
particular author or demonstrate how an individual's research has had an impact within the field. Here, 
while publishing articles in highly ranked journals is noteworthy, the Petitioner did not demonstrate 
that the Beneficiary's overall publication record, including these articles, demonstrates the required 
sustained national or international acclaim for this highly restrictive classification. See H.R. Rep. No. 
at 59; section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. 
Similarly, with respect to the Beneficiary's contribution to a book edited by a Nobel Prize laureate, 
we agree with one expert's opinion that her invitation to co-author the chapter "speaks to her high 
scientific caliber." The Petitioner notes that "only 100" scientists in a sub-field with over 1,000 
researchers who study I I biology were asked to make co-author chapters. However, the 
record does not show that the contribution of this book chapter, which, as of the date of filing had not 
been cited by other researchers, is indicative of her place among the small percentage at the very top 
of the field. 
In addition to submitting evidence related to her publications, the Petitioner provided letters from 
experts who have weighed in on the importance of the Beneficiary's research rgarrng the role of 
in cancer. I I a professor at states that the 
._B_e_n_e_f-1c-i-ar_y_'_s_c_o_n_tr-ib_u_t-io_n_s-"h_a_v_e-en_a__.bled development of a new and stnifyant field ofi I 
research."! I a professor of medicinal chemistry at states that although the 
role of l fin cancer progression is an active topic of interest in the field, "[the Beneficiary's] 
work was the first to establish that ' and 
. " He states that she made "a .__ _________________________ __, 
milestone discovery as it brings to prominence a field of research that was previously not well­
established" and notes that the data she provided "can help guide and optimize drug development 
decisions." I I at the National Cancer Institute, states that 
6 
he "can confidently place [the Beneficiary's] discoveries among some of the most critical novel 
findings in the I Vcancer space" and indicates that he has cited the Beneficiary's work in 
his own co-authored articles. I I who mentored the Beneficiary during her doctoral 
studies at C7ind was one of her co-authors in this research area, stated that her discovery of 
previously unknown signaling mechanisms ofl lare "remarkable" and "have changed our 
classical views ofl ] biology." He farther states that he, as the laboratory head, has been 
invited to present data from their research at over 25 oral presentations worldwide" thus shoring the I 
"far-reaching impact" of the study. ~----~~ of thel IUniversity of Ireland 
states that the Beneficiary's findings in this are "can offer development of additional, therapeutic 
solutions" an
1 
prlduced data sets that "will be invaluable resources to the entire scientific community 
in the area of and cancer." 
These statements provide support for a finding that the Beneficiary made a significant and original 
scientific contribution but do not necessarily support a finding that she achieved sustained national or 
international acclaim as a result of such contribution. For example, whilel I indicates that 
he has been invited to present their joint research at over 25 conferences throughout the United States 
and worldwide and continues to receive invitations to do so, the Petitioner indicates that the 
Beneficiary herself was invited to give oral presentations related to this research at four U.S. 
conferences between 2012 and 2014 and has not received the same level ofrecognition for the work. 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary also made an original contribution in the field ofl I 
cancer research during her time atl !Medicine which has resulted in additional acclaim 
and recognition in the field of oncolo . The record reflects that she co-authored a "collaborative 
paper" titled ' 
published in Nature Medicine in 2017 that had been cited 41 times as of the 
date of filing in January 2019. 5 .__ ________ __. assistant professor of I __ I 
I IMedicine, who mentored the Beneficiary when she was a postdoctoral associate, notes that 
Nature Medicine is "one of the top 5 journals in the field of medicine" and notes that "contributing 
author, in this nub)jcatjon" included several "world-renowned! !cancer researchers." I I c=J,. I, and I ~- However, the record does not reflect how being 
one of 32 co-authors of this Nature Medicine article resulted in or contributed to the Beneficiary's 
sustained national or international acclaim in the field. 
A letter froJ I professor of biomedical research at University ofD who worked 
with the Beneficiary during his previous tenure atl I College, explains her findings in this 
field of research and asserts that "[the Petitioner's] project during her postdoctoral work is highly 
meaningful to the advancement of precision medicine inl I cancer." He emphasizes tlat Nature 
Medicine is widely revered and has "a very low acceptance rate, typically less than 10%." I 
farther explains that she received additional recognition for this research by having her poster accepted 
for presentation at the 20161 I Cancer Research annual meeting, and by having 
her grant proposal outlining the research recommended for fonding by the U.S. Department of 
Defense. He opines that "few scientists in the field achieve a similar milestone at this stage of their 
5 The Petitioner also co-authored an a11icle in this field ofresearch titled·~--------------~ 
~-----~ which was published in Cancer Research in 2016. The record reflects that this article had not been 
cited by other researchers as of the date of filing. 
7 
careers."I I also states that the Beneficiary has achieved "milestones that are aspirational to 
cancer researchers at her career stage." However, neither! lnorl ~xplains how the 
Petitioner's receipt of postdoctoral grant fonding or presentation of a poster at thd I meeting 
demonstrates that her research in this area has resulted in her being among the small percentage of 
scientists at the very top of the field as a whole. Overall, the evidence related to the Beneficiary's 
publications and scholarly contributions to her field demonstrates that she is an accomplished scientist 
who garnered a level of recognition for herl lcancer and I lrelated research that is 
notable for a researcher at the early stages of her career. However, the evidence does not show that 
she is recognized as being among the small percentage of scientists in her field who have achieved 
sustained national or international acclaim as evidenced through extensive documentation. 
The Petitioner has also not demonstrated how the Beneficiary's leading or critical role in its 
organization has resulted in her sustained national or international acclaim. 6 The Petitioner provides 
letters from several of the Beneficiary's current and former work colleagues who provide details of 
her role in helping to secure critical partnership and collaboration projects with other pharmaceutical 
companies. 7 Further, it asserts that"[ e ]xecuting four ( 4) business deals in one year is no easy feat and 
itself underscores [the Beneficiary's] extraordinary abilities." 
The record reflects that the referenced collaboration and partnership deals are both highly valuable to 
the Petitioner from a financial standpoint and beneficial to ongoing research into I O O I 
treatments based on the company's! ~ssets. The Beneficiary's colleagues provide 
sufficient detail to establish her critical role with the company, and offer high praise for her talents. 
For example,! I the Petitioner's former Chief Legal Officer and General Counsel, 
asserts that she considers the Beneficiary to be "among a small, top percentile of individuals with the 
technical background and analytical skills required to drive such a function within a biotechnology 
company." Likewise,! I the Petitioner's Vice President of Business Development and 
Alliance Mana:ement, states that the Beneficiary is "an extraordinary individual in the field of 
I 00 ~ and "in the top 1 % of individuals that I have worked with in a similar capacity 
across my career and the top 1 % of performers at [the Petitioner]. I I 
the City of Hope Medical Center, indicates that he worked with the Beneficiary to write a three]arty 
research collaboration for the purpose of advancing a vaccine candidate for a type oti • , He 
states that the Beneficiary's "unique skill set rises to a much greater level than peers at her same level" 
and "is far beyond the reach of most professionals at her stage of their professional careers." 
While the testimonial evidence demonstrates the nature of the Beneficiary's critical role within the 
company, indicates her involvement with some high-profile deals and collaboration projects, and 
offers strong praise for her talents from both colleagues and partners, the record does not show how 
her role with the petitioning company or her achievements in that role have resulted in national or 
6 The Director detennined that the Beneficiary met the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) based only on her leading 
or critical role with the Petitioner, and the record reflects that the Petitioner initially claimed eligibility based solely on that 
role. The Petitioner later claimed that the Beneficiary also held a critical role as a postdoctoral associate for I I 
Medicine. We note that the Beneficiary's achievements and recognitions received during her tenure there, including her 
Nature Medicine publication, her U.S. Department of Defense grant, and her invitation to present a poster at the 2016 
I !meeting, are all addressed elsewhere in this decision and will not be repeated in our analysis related to this criterion. 
7 While we discuss a representative sample here, we have reviewed and considered all of the letters that relate to the 
Beneficiary's role with the petitioning company. 
8 
international acclaim or her recognition as being one of the small percentage at the top of her field by 
persons other than co-workers and partners with whom she has worked. The Petitioner provided 
copies of e-mails that the Beneficiary has received which demonstrate that recruiters working for other 
companies have tried to recruit her based on the information she provided on her Linkedln profile; 
however, this evidence was submitted to establish that there is a high demand for professionals with 
her skillset, not to establish that she is being recruited based on her recognition as one of the scientists 
or industry professionals at the very top of the oncology field. 
The Petitioner further argues on appeal that the Director overlooked evidence related to the 
Beneficiary's awards and memberships in his final merits determination, and that such evidence 
further supports a finding that the Beneficiary meets the requirements for this classification. 
The Director acknowledged that the Beneficijry was jwarded a Department of Defense research grant 
providing over $211,000 in funding for a cancer research project, but determined that 
"research grants are not awards for excellence; rather they simply fund research or work" and are "not 
intended to honor or recognize past excellence." On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the 
Beneficiary's research grant "shows sustained and recognition in the scientific community placing her 
among the top percentage of individuals in her field." The record reflects that, during her tenure as a 
postdoctoral associate at I I Medicine, the Petitioner abplied for and was awarded a 
Department of Defense I I Cancer Research Program "Early Investigator Research 
A ward - Postdoctoral." She was one of 16 recipients of this grant in 2016 out of 77 applicants whose 
applications met the program requirements, all of whom were required to be actively involved in 
postdoctoral training for a period of less than three years. 
The evidence indicates that factors considered in awarding the grant included the Beneficiary's 
academic record, research and publication history, and career goals, as well as factors unrelated to her 
individual achievements, such as her mentor's qualifications as a researcher and his past record of 
training young scientists, whether the application presented a training and development plan for the 
Beneficiary, whether she would have the facilities and equipment necessary to carry out the research, 
and whether the research program had the potential to address an unmet need in prostate cancer 
research. Therefore, while the grant reviewers took into account the Beneficiary's past achievements 
as a student and young investigator, and the grant was received through a competitive process, the 
evidence does not support the Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary's receipt of this postdoctoral 
funding, even from a national organization such as the U.S. Department of Defense, establishes or is 
reflective of her national or international acclaim or her placement among scientists at the very top of 
the field. The Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence of the acclaim connected to this award, 
such as press coverage beyond documenting that a list of award winners was published on the granting 
organization's own website. The commentary for the proposed regulations implementing section 
203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act provide that the "intent of Congress that a very high standard be set for 
aliens of extraordinary ability is reflected in this regulation by requiring the petitioner to present more 
extensive documentation than that required" for lesser classifications. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30704 
(July 5, 1991). 
On appeal, the Petitioner also highlights the Beneficiary's associate membership in the American 
Association of Cancer Researchers (AACR), as a factor that should contribute to a finding that she 
meets the high standard for this classification. A letter from the AACR indicates that it is a 
9 
professional assocrnt10n with 40,000 member scientists worldwide and six membership levels. 
Associate membership is available to graduate students, medical students and residents, and 
postdoctoral fellows, who must be nominated by a current active, emeritus or honorary member in 
good standing. The Petitioner emphasizes that "membership is only granted if the candidate has or 
will make long-term contributions to cancer research and adheres to accepted ethical scientific 
methods," and asserts that the Beneficiary's "membership highlights her extraordinary ability in the 
field of oncology, farther qualifying her for this criterion as an extraordinary ability individual in the 
sciences." The Petitioner provided a letter froml I the AACR member who nominated her, 
and while he clearly holds her scientific work in high regard, the record does not support a finding that 
being accepted as associate member in the AACR points to a scientist's national or international 
acclaim, nor does it demonstrate how it is indicative of one of the small percentage who has risen to 
the top of the field. 
In addition, on appeal, counsel points to the Beneficiary's "extraordinarily high remuneration" as 
supportive of "a showing of sustained acclaim and recognition in her scientific community placing her 
among the top percentage of individuals in her field." Counsel acknowledges, however, that the 
Petitioner did not previously claim eligibility based on the Beneficiary's salary under the criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix), and the appeal does not include independent, objective evidence 
establishing that the Beneficiary's salary or remuneration package is high in comparison with others 
employed in similar positions in her geographic area. Further, while a high salary may demonstrate 
some degree ofrecognition of her achievements in the field, the Petitioner has not submitted evidence 
showing the Beneficiary's earnings are at a level reflecting that she is one of the small percentage who 
has risen to the top of the field. 
Finally, as noted, the Petitioner has submitted a number of recommendation letters that summarize the 
Beneficiary's professional accomplishments as both a researcher and professional in the biotechnology 
researcher. Here, the letters do not provide sufficient information and explanation, nor does the record 
include sufficient corroborating evidence, to show that the Petitioner is viewed by the overall field, 
rather than by a solicited few, as being among that small percentage at the very top of the field of 
endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). In fact, as noted, many of the highly accomplished experts 
who provided their support of the Beneficiary's petition indicate that they consider her to be among 
the top when compared to scientists with a similar amount of research or industry experience, rather 
than comparing her to those who enjoy sustained national or international acclaim and recognition for 
being at the top of the field. For example,! I stated that he has been "impressed with [the 
Beneficiary's scientific knowledge in oncology and analytical skills, and can place her productivity 
and career progress as highly exceptional beyond what I have seen in her peer group." 
The record as a whole, including the evidence discussed above, does not establish the Beneficiary's 
eligibility for the benefit sought. The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended 
for individuals already at the top of their respective fields, rather than those progressing toward the 
top. USCIS has long held that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically 
meet the statutory standards for classification as an individual of "extraordinary ability." Matter of 
Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). While the Petitioner need not establish that 
there is no one more accomplished to qualify for the classification sought, we find the record 
insufficient to demonstrate that the Beneficiary has sustained national or international acclaim and is 
10 
among the small percentage at the top of her field. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). 
C. Continued Work in the Area of Extraordinary Ability 
The Director also denied the petition based on a finding that the Petitioner did not establish that the 
Beneficiary would be working in the United States in her area of claimed extraordinary ability, as 
required by section 203(b )(1 )(A)(ii) of the Act. The Director's determination was based on a 
conclusion that the Petitioner has offered the Beneficiary a managerial role "that is not in the 
beneficiary's field of medical research" and because the Beneficiary would not be working "as a 
researcher." 
We agree with the Petitioner's assertion that the Beneficiary's field and area of expertise is oncology 
and that both her prior work as a researcher and her role with the Petitioner rely on her expertise in 
this field. The Petitioner has submitted several detailed letters from its own senior staff explaining 
how the Beneficiary's current role relies on her scientific knowledge in the field of oncology research, 
as well as letters from independent recruiters in the biotechnology field who explain that persons in 
pharmaceutical industry roles comparable to the Beneficiary's typical possess a background similar to 
her own. Accordingly, we will withdraw the Director's adverse finding with respect to this issue. 
D. 0-1 Nonimmigrant Status 
The record reflects that the Beneficiary received 0-1 status, a classification reserved for 
nonimmigrants of extraordinary ability. Although USCIS has approved at least one 0-1 nonimmigrant 
visa petition filed on behalf of the Beneficiary, the prior approval does not preclude USCIS from 
denying an immigrant visa petition which is adjudicated based on a different standard - statute, 
regulations, and case law. Many Form 1-140 immigrant petitions are denied after USCIS approves 
prior nonimmigrant petitions. See, e.g., Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 
2003); IKEA US v. US Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. 
Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d Cir. 1990). Furthermore, our 
authority over the USCIS service centers, the office adjudicating the nonimmigrant visa petition, is 
comparable to the relationship between a court of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center 
director has approved a nonimmigrant petition on behalf of an individual, we are not bound to follow 
that finding in the adjudication of another immigration petition. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra 
v. INS, No. 98-2855, 2000 WL 282785 (E.D. La.), affd, 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 
122 S.Ct. 51 (2001). 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated the Beneficiary's 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. 
11