dismissed EB-1A Case: Pharmacochemistry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 7031068 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 22, 2020 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a research senior specialist in the field of pharmacochemistry, 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 he met only two of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for the requested classification, of which he 
must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims that he 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 )(1) 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) 
( 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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner received his bachelor's and master's degrees in chemistry from niversity 
in China in 2004 and 2007, respectively. In June 2008, he joined the University of.__ __ ____,s 
Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences as a visiting research scholar, and, since 2013, has worked for 
this employer as a research senior specialist. The record reflects that his area of specialization is in 
.__ _____ __. a branch of pharmacology that investigates drug I I and the I I 
drugs within the body. A letter verif in the Petitioner's current employment indicates that, as a 
research senior specialist, he uses and develops D methodologies to 
measure the concentration of various drugs in ses data analysis software to perform 
quality control measures, performs drug '-----~ studies using I I and 
I I, and performs othe.i--L'...,,"=·",.;:,1 .,,,,,_,,rr,.,.~""""'Y responsibilities. The record reflects that the Petitioner has 
contributed to the University of 's research studies in various medical fields including! I 
therapy and drugl I, prevention o ,__ __ _. birth, prevention ofi I in transplant patients 
and other areas of transplantation research. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that he has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, he must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
As noted, the Director found that the Petitioner met only two of the initial evidentiary criteria, judging 
the work of others in his 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 he has peer-reviewed manuscripts for 
several journals including Acta Biomateriala and Journal of Bioanalysis & Biomedicine. In addition, 
the record contains evidence that the Petitioner has authored scholarly articles published in journals 
including Biomaterials, Acta Biomateriala, Hepatology, American Journal of Obstetrics & 
Gynecology, Nature Communications, and Cell Transplantation. Accordingly, we agree with the 
Director that the Petitioner fulfilled the requirements of the judging and scholarly articles criteria. 
2 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he also satisfies the requirements of the criterion relating to 
original contributions of major significance in his field. After reviewing all of the evidence in the 
record, we find that the Petitioner has not established that he 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. 1 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. 
The Petitioner claims that he has made several original contributions of major significance in his field 
as evidenced by his published research, citation record, and letters from experts in the field. On appeal, 
he claims that "more than 4 million people every year benefit from my scientific contributions in 
Pregnancy, Preterm Birth, Antibiotic prophylaxis, Transplantation, and Cancer." 
The Petitioner's original scientific contributions are summarized in the record as follows: (1) he 
contributed to synthesizing two c=Jcompounds which have been shown to improve the efficacy and 
lessen the cytotoxicity of the anti-cancer drugs I landl lin mice; (2) he contributed to 
the d
1
esignl of a purified I I enzyme (TDE) used for the separation of human I I 
from tissue, and performed other assessments of~ I functions in cell culture; (3) he 
investigated the use of progesterone I I to prevent the pre-term birth and studied the effect of 
I I jn thd I ofl C; (4) he studied the impact ofl I drugs 
in patients receiving I therapy to prevent organ rejection and determined the need for 
therapeutic drug monitoring in this population, particularly for patients with I I and (5) he 
developed and validated al l probe for measuring amino acids and rher materials that cannot 
be effectively measured by high performance! . 
Expert Opinion Letters 
Although the Petitioner provided evidence reflecting the originality of his research through 
recommendation letters praising him for his contributions, 2 as discussed below, the authors do not 
provide specific examples of contributions that are indicative of major significance or support his 
claim that his original contributions have already impacted millions of patients with various clinical 
conditions. In general, the letters recount the Petitioner's research and findings, indicate their 
publications in journals, and point to the citation of his work by others. Although they reflect the 
novelty of the projects on which he worked, they do not show how his research and findings have been 
considered of such importance and how their impact on the field rises to the level required by this 
criterion. 
1 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form I-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). 
2 Although we do not discuss every letter submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
3 
The Petitioner notes that he is "particularly well-known" for develo ment of al lcarrier 
for the delivery of the drug I Ito patients with cancer. He rovided several 
expert opinion letters that address this research, including one from.__ ______ __, an associate 
dean at the University o±i School of Pharmacf' whl explains that the Petitioner developed 
variations of the common anti-cancer agents D and "with reduced toxicity and increased 
clinical viability," and states that the Petitioner's findings "are highly significant in the area of 
oncology and cancer research, as they introduce a demonstrably effective alternative approach to 
'classical' chemotherapy." 
I an assistant professor at'-------..----~------------ further described 
'-th_1_· s-r-e-se_a_r-ch .... noyng thr the Petitioner' S studies "resulted in the development of several I I 
I land formulations that exhibited superior antitumor activity while reducing the risk 
of harmful side effects." He notes that the formulations developed were based on conjugates derived 
from.__ _________________ __. and states that the Petitioner explained "a novel 
strategy to effectively co-deliver these two therapeutic compounds to the tumors." I I states 
that the Petitioner's work "marks a major milestone in cancer research" and is "instrumental" in his 
own work, but does not explain how his research has been impacted or elaborate as to why the research 
was considered a "major milestone." 
of Universit states that the Petitioner's 2013 article I 
'----------------------------------~' has "figured 
prominently" in his own work. He notes that the Petitioner's studies in this area "advanced the field's 
understanding of pharmacokinetics and treatments for cancer" and "helped to facilitate advancement 
toward the development of drugs that effectively target and treat cancer."1 < I states that he cited 
the above-referenced article in his own article 
I l" and notes that his publicati._o_n_'-'w_o_u_l_d_h_a_v_e_b_e_e_n_g_l_a-ri_n_g_ly-in_c_o_m_p_l_e_te_"_w-it_h_ou_t_. 
the Petitioner's prior research. In addition, he notes that the Petitioner's "research has facilitated the 
advancement of improvements tol I and I !delivery research" and "engendered 
subsequent valuable work in the field." 
Finally, the Petitioner submitted a letter froml I associate professor at .... l _ __._ ___ _. 
University Cancer Hospital, who states that the Petitioner "has made numerfms )andmlrk contributions 
in the uphill battel [sic] against cancer," and discusses his work with ._ ____ _._ as a "scientific 
breakthrough" that "raises hopes of a new type of therapy that could treat cancer." Overall, however, 
none of the expert letters elaborated or discussed whether the Petitioner's findings have been 
implemented beyond informing the research of other scientists in the same field, and if so, the extent 
of their application. While the letters praise the Petitioner's research as original, valuable and 
promising, they have not sufficiently detailed in what ways his studies have already advanced the state 
of research in this field or elaborated on how the Petitioner's work has already impacted the wider 
field beyond the teams of researchers who have directly cited his articles. 
On appeal, the Petitioner provides evidence that the University of I I has been granted two 
patents for "formulations and carrier systems" that cite his papers in this field. The Petitioner is not 
listed as an inventor on either patent. Even if he were acknowledged as an inventor, we note that a 
patent recognizes the originality of an idea, but it would not demonstrate that he made a contribution 
4 
of major significance in the field. Rather, the significance of the innovation must be determined on a 
case-by-case basis, and considered in light of other evidence in the record. 
With respect to the Petitioner's research ofl !metabolic functions in cell culture, he states that 
he has "done pioneering work in the area of in vitro model development for isolation of I I 
I t and has "enlightened scientists around the world with a methodology for isolating and 
culturin&I lcells for various studies." I I a professor at the University of 
I } Transplant~Institute, discussed the Petitioner's research in this area, noting that the 
Petitioner's "novel L_J approach is both a safe and effective approach for clinical I I 
transplantation." He also identified another researcher who cited the Petitioner's research, noting that 
the Petitioner's work onl I transplants was "valuable to the execution of this study." D 
'-----.-----I a professor at the University of~--------- states that a "cell isolation 
core" at uses a protocol directly modified from the Petitioner's method to isolate human 
,,___ ___ .....,from I ltissue. More generally,! I notes that the ability to isolate human 
...___ ___ _.is critical to studying and treating0diseases, and states that "the conclusions shaped 
by [the Petitioner's] guidance hold weighty implications for the progressing advancement of modem 
medical solutions." 
These two letters are not sufficiently detailed to explain how the Petitioner's research in the area of 
humatj I isolation is considered to be an original contribution of major significance. Further, 
we note that the Petitioner states that he developed "a methodology for isolating and culturing human 
~ cells," and I J's letter seems to support this statement. However, the Petitioner's published 
article indicates that his research group's objective was to o timize the composition of al I 
~-----lenzyme I I reagent used for the isolation of to ensure consistency and 
purity. In fact, the Petitioner's paper states that the and subsequent! I 
Petitioner's own claim that he developed a methodology for isolating and culturin The 
isolation procedures used were developed by ... " and therefore dogrt the 
Petitioner's paper does indicate that his g
1
oup !developed aD reagent called by reverse 
engineering a particular lot of an existing reagent that was being used in the Petitioner's lab. 
While the research appears to have been novel based on its objective to identify an ideal composition 
.fur..c=J reagents used in I ~ isolation, the Petitioner did not establish, for example, that the 
~ product developed is being widely used for isolation ofl lor that this research has 
otherwise had an impact of major significance on the field. 
Turning to the Petitioner's research involving pre-term labor in pregnant women a su orting cover 
letter indicates that he "developed a cost effective compounde · for treatment 
of pre-term birth." The Petitioner submitted a letter from .__ _____ __. of the University of 
I I School of Medicine. I I echoes the Petitioner's statemevt that bis 
research "resulted in developing an effective, safe, and inexpensive alternative for L I 
treatment" and states that it "has the potential in helping more than 130,000 who receive treatment for 
preterm delivery each year." However, the Petitioner's article, titled 
~-___._......,,es not corroborate the Petitioner's claim that his ~------------------I 
res ear ch group developed a cost effective ~--~treatment. Rather it states that they evaluated the 
quality of compounded I I samples obtained from 15 U.S nhaouac1es, which produce an 
alternative to the much more expensive FDA-approved version ofl I marketed as I I 
The article reflects that similar studies had already been undertaken by other researchers, and by the 
5 
FDA itself. The study concluded that the compounded I I evaluated did not raise any safety 
concerns when assessed for potency, sterility, pyrogen status or iu,u.L.LLLL.U..1....i---1 hile it appears this 
research somewhat expanded upon prior evaluations of compounded · dent that the 
Petitioner's research did not result in the development of a new inexpensiv ,__ __ ___,treatment as 
claimed by the Petitioner and aprareut)v confirmed by I I rather, it confirmed the safety of 
available compounded versions ofl I We may, in our discretion, use as advisory opinion 
statements from universities, professional organizations, or other sources submitted in evidence as 
expert testimony. However, where an opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way 
questionable, we are not required to accept or may give less weight to that evidence. Matter of Caron 
Int'!, 19 I&N Dec. 791 (Comm'r 1988). Further, the evidence does not establish that the Petitioner's 
research in this area was deemed a contribution of major significance in the field . 
.__ _____ ~I a professor at the University of.__ ___________ ~ indicates that the 
Petitioner worked with him in researching medications taken by pregnant women and served as the 
primary assayist of blood and tissue samples collected during these studies. He notes that the 
Petitioner developed an assay for I I but does not otherwise address the above-referenced 
study or its impact on the field. He also states that the Petitioner developed assays forl l 
an agent used to treat patients with anl I disorder. I I indicates that his research with 
I I has led to a change in how the medication is administered to pregnant women in terms 
of dosage. He also states that the studies in which the Petitioner participated have "ba4 significant 
impact on pregnancy care." He does not state that the Petitioner's study on I J has had an 
impact of major significance on the field. Further, the record does not reflect that the Petitioner has 
published research with respect tol I and pregnancy and it is unclear whether or to what 
extent he has contributed to the dosage recommendations referenced byl l or whether those 
recommendations have been widely implemented in the field, or are being implemented within the 
University ofl I medical system. 
Finally, the Petitioner indicates that he studied the effect of endogenous steroid hormones on 
pharmacokinetics of I I in pregnant women. '---~---~of the University of I I I I School of Medicine comments on the Petitioner's research in this area, stating that he 
"sought to provide evidence-based guidelines for the use of~ I in preventing premature 
birth." He indicates that the Petitioner's study evaluated I I andl I and 
noted that plasma concentrations ofl I varied significantly between patients, f espjte jd[ntical 
doses, and found that endogenous steroid hormones inhibited the metabolism of ,__ __ _., thus 
explaining the observed discrepancy. I I explains the Petitioner's study, but does not elaborate 
as to how or to what extent the Petitioner's research has significantly impacted the field. The record 
does not, for example, demonstrate that the Petitioner's research resulted in implementation of the 
evidence-based guidelines referenced byl I Therefore, we cannot determine that the 
Petitioner's research in this area is recognized as an original contribution that has remarkably 
influenced the field. 
The fourth original contribution identified by the Petitioner relates to his study ofl I drugs in 
patients who have received organ transplants and are undergoing .__ ______ __, therapy to 
prevent organ rejection. I ts letter discusses this research, noting that the Petitioner's results 
"highlight the need to incorporate new formulations ofl 1 into treatment standards for 
transplant patients, especially for transplant patients wit~ r" He notes that the Petitioner's 
6 
study was cited by other researchers in a retrospective study, which highlighted his finding that 
transplant patients with0exhibit decreased absorption ofl I if taken by oral suspension. 
I l an oncology clinical pharmacist at University of I I, stresses the 
importance of therapeutic drug monitoring to ensure appropriate dosing for transplant patients. He 
states that the Petitioner developed and validated assays for measuring I 11 I 
and I I in patient university's hospital and notes that his methods "have been utilized by 
various other researchers in their research work in various patient populations." However, the letters 
and referenced retrospective article do not contain sufficient information to establish that the 
Petitioner's research in this area, while perhaps novel, has remarkably impacted treatment or 
therapeutic drug monitoring recommendations or practices for transplant patients on a scale consistent 
with a contribution of major significance in his field. 
Finally, the Petitioner states that he has developed and validated a l~---~I probe for the 
measurement of amino acids and "similar natural products" in organic com ounds notin that amino 
acids cannot be detected and analyzed effectively using traditional .......... ~------~~ 
I ~ methods because they cannot absorb ultraviolet light. ~-~addresses this 
research in his letter, noting that the Petitioner's! lprobes "allow researchers to collect 
measurement at much lower concentrations than was possible using,c=::J" He also indicates that 
the I I probes serve as a viable and less costly alternative toL__j stating that the Petitioner 
"has enabled the pharmaceutical industry to better screen fheir prlducts for purity, leading to a more 
productive, transparent, and safe industry overall." While explains the novelty and benefit of 
the Petitioner's L I probe, there is insufficient support in the record showing that this 
technology is being widely used in the pharmaceutical industry or that his work is recognized for 
making the industry safer and more productive on the scale suggested byl I 
A letter from I I professor of pharmaceutical sciences at University of I I also 
addresses this research, noting that the ~er made a "significant contribution to the develo ment 
of new methods for various I L" L_J notes that the Petitioner developed a novel 
compound and I ~ probe that is "1.13 to 8.21 times more sensitive th._a_n~------.-1 
derivatives (a well-known amino acid I lprobe)." While D noted that the Petitioner 
"successfully used this probe for detection o±i L" his letter does not corroborate I ts 
statement that the Petitioner's I lprobe has had a significant impact on the product1v1ty and 
safety of the pharmaceutical industry. 
Overall, the letters considered above primarily contain attestations of the novelty and utility of the 
Petitioner's research studies without providing specific examples of contributions that rise to a level 
consistent with major significance in the Petitioner's field. Letters that specifically articulate how a 
petitioner's contributions are of major significance to the field and its impact on subsequent work add 
value. 3 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. 4 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 not establish 
3 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, supra, at 8-9. 
4 Id. at 9. 
7 
that the Petitioner's work has had a demonstrable impact on the field as a whole commensurate with 
a contribution of major significance. 
Petitioner's Publications and Citation History 
In addition to the expert opinion letters, the Petitioner also provides his publication and citation record 
from Google Scholar, statistical information regarding his number of publications and citations from 
Clarivate Analytics and Microsoft Academics, and samples of other published articles that cite his 
work. 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 [his] work as authoritative in the field, may be probative of the 
significance of [his] contributions to the field of endeavor." 5 
The Petitioner also submitted evidence from Clarivate Analytics showing that some of the articles he 
published, in both cancer chemotherapy research and in other areas discussed above, were ranked 
among the top 10% in citations when grouped by academic field (in this case, pharmacology and 
toxicology) and year of publication. He farther submitted a paper published in the journal 
Scientometrics which suggests that this metric is one of three that should be used to evaluate individual 
researchers in the natural and life sciences" for purposes of fonding and promotion or hiring decisions. 
The authors state that "publications which are among the 10% most cited publications in their subject 
area are as a rule called highly cited or excellent" and that "the top 10% based excellence indicator" 
should be given "the highest weight when comparing the scientific performance of single researchers." 
However, this evidence does not establish that metrics that may be suitable for comparing applicants 
for academic research positions and grants are indicators that a researcher has made contributions of 
major significance to his or her field. 
Comparative rankings to baseline or average citation rates do not automatically establish that a given 
petitioner has made a contribution of major significance in the field. 6 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 a citation ranking does not provide sufficient context to determine 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 not demonstrated, as he asserts, any of the articles he characterizes as 
highly cited resulted in an original contribution of major significance in the field. While the Petitioner 
submitted corroborating evidence in the form of expert opinion letters, that evidence, for the reasons 
already discussed, is not sufficient to establish that any of the Petitioner's research findings have 
remarkably impacted or influenced his field. 
5 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 9. 
6 For instance, according to the data rrom Clarivate Analytics, pharmacology and toxicology papers published in 2017 
receiving only five citations are in the top 10%. The Petitioner has not demonstrated that papers with such citation counts 
have necessarily had a major, significant impact or influence in the field as evidenced by being among the top 10% of most 
highly cited articles according to year of publication. 
8 
The Petitioner also states that, according to Microsoft Academic, his total number of publications and 
citations is high compared to other researchers active during the same period of time. However, data 
that summarizes citations to the Petitioner's entire body of published work do not demonstrate that 
any specific work of his is so widely cited and relied upon that it is considered to have made a major 
impact his 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. Once again, the issue for this criterion is whether the Petitioner has made 
original contributions of major significance in the field rather than where his overall citation rates rank 
among others in his field. 
Further, the record indicates that the Petitioner submitted examples of "notable citations" to his work 
by other researchers. A review of those articles, though, does not show the significance of the 
Petitioner's research or demonstrate how it has widely impacted the field. The Petitioner's most cited 
article, both in the cancer chemotherapy research area and overall, was published in Biomaterials in 
2013. The Petitioner provided a copy of an article entitled, ' 
I I' ( Cancer Lett .... er_s_)_, i_n_w_h-ic_h_t_h_e_a_u-th_o_r_s _c-it-ed-to_h__.is 
2013 Biomaterials article. 7 However, the article does not distinguish or highlight the Petitioner's 
written work from the over 50 other cited papers; rather, the authors cited his article and two others as 
a source for establishing a well-tolerated dose ofl lin mice. 
The Petitioner also submitted co ies of articles that cite his 2012 Cell Trans Zant article titled 
.__ __ ....," which was his second most cited publication at the time of filing according to Google 
Scholar. Several researchers cited the Petitioner's article in support of a statement that 'I I 
I t and one paper 
indicates that I " , !according to the methods described 
previously by [the Petitioner's team]." However, the cited portions of the Petitioner's paper were not 
his original findings· n article indicates that '---=----..------' 1s a 
common method for and it states that the methods used in the Petitioner's 
study fo ~------__.and subsequen,__~-~-----' procedures were established by other 
researchers. These and other articles citing the Petitioner's research do not demonstrate how his 
original findings have significantly influenced the field. 
The Petitioner also emphasizes that his publications have been cited in several review articles, and 
stated that the appearance of his articles in the review literature demonstrates the significant impact of 
his work. The Petitioner further explains that review articles are "an attempt to ... sum up the current 
state of the research on a particular topic" and may identify "the main people working in a field" and 
"recent major advances and discoveries." One of the submitted review articles, titled~----~ 
~ew England Journal of Medicine), cites to the Petitioner's finding that 
compoundedl____J from 15 pharmacies were found to raise no safety concerns. It does not, 
however, support the Petitioner's claim that the article's author "recommended based on 
the Petitioner's demonstration of its safety as a treatment" given that the record reflects tha ~--~ 
7 Although we discuss representative sample articles here, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
9 
treatment has been a widely used treatment for preterm labor and had been approved by the FDA for 
this purpose prior to the Petitioner's study. 
Another review article, titled 
(Journal of Materials Chemistry B) cites to two of the Petitioner's 
studies in this area (published in his 2013 and 2015 Biomaterials articles) as being among "several 
attempts toward I I based I I drug delivery systems with different antitumor agents," but 
does not otherwise address the impact of this research or the importance of the Petitioner's findings in 
these studies, nor does it distinguish his papers from the other 116 papers cited. 
While the evidence indicates that the Petitioner has made original contributions in several fields of 
active scientific research, we cannot determine that every publication cited in a review article is 
indicative of an original contribution of major significance. Considered together, the evidence 
consisting of the citations to the Petitioner's published findings, the citation statistics, and the reference 
letters from his colleagues and other experts, establishes that the Petitioner has been very productive, 
and that his published data and findings have been relied upon by others in their own research. It does 
not demonstrate that the Petitioner has made an original contribution of major significance in his field. 
Therefore, he 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 his work is indicative of the required sustained national or 
international acclaim or that it is consistent with a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as 
contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section 203(b )(l)(A) 
of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered 
national or international acclaim in the field, and he 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). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered 
as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
10