dismissed EB-1A Case: Physics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 22045843 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 7, 2022 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a research associate employed by the I I 
I , I, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in the field of I physics. 
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. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner had submitted evidence meeting three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria listed under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), but that he did not present sufficient documentation showing his 
sustained national or international acclaim and demonstrating that he was among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director erred in the final merits determination. He 
maintains that he has established eligibility to be classified as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361 ;MatterofChawathe, 25 I&N 
Dec. 369,375 (AAO 2010). 1 Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to individuals with 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, provided that the individual seeks to enter the United States to continue 
1 If a petitioner submits relevant, probative, and credible evidence that leads us to believe that the claim is "more likely 
than not" or"probably"true, he or she has satisfied the preponderance of the evidence standard. Chawathe, 25 I&NDec. 
at375-76. 
work in the area of extraordinary ability, and the individual'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 
international recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that 
is, a major, internationally recognized award). If the petitioner does not submit this evidence, then the 
petitioner must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten criteria 
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). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner to submit 
comparable evidence if it is able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do 
not readily apply to his or her occupation. 
If 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 he or she 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);Rijalv. USCIS, 772F. Supp.2d 1339(W.D. Wash.2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The evidence indicates that since 2018, the Petitioner has been employed as a research associate with 
the I in I Illinois, receiving an annual salary of approximately $65,000. According to 
an August 2021 letter from his employer, "[a]s a research associate, [the Petitioner] is responsible for 
understanding the of the ex eriment and develo ment of the 
algorithms to identify the events in 
I I which can be applied to and experiments." The 
Petitioner's curriculum vitae provides that atth , he "work s o experiments: 
I __ an 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner met the initial evidentiary requirements of presenting 
documents that satisfied at least three of the ten criteria listed under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 2 
Specifically, the Director found that the Petitioner offered evidence of his participation as a judge of 
the work of others, his authorship of scholarly articles in the field in professional publications, and his 
2 The Director concluded that the evidence did not show the Petitioner had received a one-time achievement (that is, a 
major, internationally recognized award) discussed under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). On appeal, the Petitioner does not 
challenge this finding. 
2 
original scientific contributions of major significance in the field. Thus, the Director determined that 
the Petitioner satisfied the three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(iv)-(vi). 
B. Final Merits Determination 
Based on the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner has submitted the required initial evidence, we 
will evaluate whether he has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, his sustained national 
or international acclaim and that he is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of 
endeavor, and that his achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive 
documentation. In a final merits determination, we analyze a petitioner's accomplishments and weigh 
the totality of the evidence to determine if his or her successes are sufficient to demonstrate 
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. 3 In this case, the Petitioner has failed to 
demonstrate that he has attained the required level of acclaim and recognition in the field. As such, 
he has not established eligibility for the classification. 
While the Petitioner has offered documentation satisfying three of the ten initial evidence criteria, two 
of these criteria involve activities that appear to be routine among research scientists. The Petitioner's 
co-authorship of scholarly articles meets the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), and his peer 
review of other scientists' manuscripts constitutes judging the work of others under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). The Director also concluded that the Petitioner has made original scientific 
contributions of major significance in the field of I physics based on his co-authorship of articles 
associated with large-scale collaborative research projects. However, the Petitioner has not specified 
the level of his involvement or the significance of his work among hundreds of researchers in these 
projects. 
To establish his standing in the field of I physics, the Petitioner relies heavily on the field's 
response, including citations, to his co-authored scholarly articles. The Petitioner offers evidence to 
show that the number of citations that his work has received is much higher than the average number 
of citations that an article in the field of physics commonly receives. While the Petitioner's field of 
I I physics is in the larger field of physics, he has not demonstrated that information extrapolated 
from the larger field applies equally to each subfield within physics, including! I physics. Thus, 
the Petitioner's comparison of his citation number in his narrow field with information regarding 
citation in the larger field of physics does not sufficiently establish the level of his acclaim and 
recognition in his field ofL__Jphysics. 
Other evidence in the record similarly fails to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that 
the Petitioner has attained the required level of acclaim and recognition for the classification. 
According to a January 2022 google scholar printout, he had co-authored 34 articles, 4 and his co­
authored work had garnered over 2,000 citations since 201 7. The printout indicates that his most cited 
articles were a 2021 article that had been cited 481 times; his 2015 article that had been cited 223 
3 See also 6 USCIS Policy Manua!F.2(8)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-2 (stating that 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCTS) officers should then evaluate the evidencetogetherwhen 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 for the immigrant classification). 
4 On his curriculum vitae, the Petitioner lists 5 6 items under "Publications." 
3 
times; his 2020 article that had been cited 148 times; and his 2018 article that had been cited 131 times. 
His two most cited articles, published in 2021 and 2015, respectively, each had over 200 authors who 
were affiliated with a multitude oflaboratories and universities, and credited the Petitioner as an author 
affiliated with the University of I The evidence shows that the articles were associated 
with large-scale collaborative research projects that the Petitioner was involved in when he was a 
Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) student at the University of I His third and fourth most cited 
work, published in 2020 and 2018, respectively, was also associated with large-scale collaborative 
research projects that involved hundreds ofresearch scientists. The Petitioner offers reference letters 
attesting to the  to the importance of these projects, indicating that the had si ificant impact in the field of 
physics. For example, l a physicist at states in his letter that the 
Petitioner "is [a] talented researcher whose research at has helped expand the limits of 
I !physics. l an associate professor in the Department of Physics, University of 
I I indicates in her letter that the Petitioner "is at the cutting edge of I physics, particulady 
in the area of ______ 
While the record confirms the importance of these research projects in the field, the evidence, 
including the reference letters, does not reveal the significance of the Petitioner's contributions in these 
projects among hundreds of other research scientists. For example, according to the materials in the 
record concerning the 2015 article, certain authors held the position of research project manager or 
deputy project manager, signifying their leadership role in the project. According to I I 
curriculum vitae, he has served as "one of two co-spokespeople," "interim overall analysis 
coordinator," "co-convener," and "project manager" for these projects. The Petitioner indicates in his 
curriculum vitae that he "Led thd !working group as [a] co-convener'' 
from August 2018 and November 2019. Neither his curriculum vitae nor other evidence in the record 
indicates that he has held any other leadership roles for these projects. The Petitioner has not 
sufficiently explained or established the level of his involvement or the significance of his work in 
these large-scale collaborative research projects. The Petitioner has also not demonstrated that a large 
number of scientists in the field recognize him as one of the lead investigators or as an individual who 
had made major contributions in these projects. 
The evidence reveals that articles that the Petitioner had co-authored with fewer scientists have not 
received the same level of attention in the field as articles that had over 200 co-authors and that were 
associated with large-scale collaborative research projects. For example, the google scholar printout 
notes that the Petitioner co-authored with two other scientists an article published in 2015 in the 
publication Physical Review D; that article received 69 citations. The printout also indicates that the 
Petitioner co-authored with seven other scientists a 2015 article - I I 
published in the journal arXiv; that article received 7 citations. He co-
authored with nine other scientists a 20 18 paper . I I I-published during the International Particle Accelerator Conference; that paper 
received 3 citations. 
The Petitioner has been credited as the first author on a few a ers that were published in conferences, 
such as the 2017 a er and the 2018 a er 
4 
According to the January 2022 go ogle scholar printout, the 201 7 paper received 4 
citations and the 2018 paper received no citation. 
A number of the Petitioner's references- including I the Petitioner's supervisor at the 
I I and indicate that the Petitioner has reviewed manuscripts for one publication and 
one conference. As relating to his service as a manuscript reviewer, we must evaluate the significance 
of his experience to determine if such evidence indicates the required level of acclaim and recognition 
for this highly restrictive classification. See Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1121-22. 5 The record confirms 
the Petitioner's participation as a reviewer for a paper associated with the 2019 International 
Conference on Physics, Mathematics and Statistics (ICPMS2019), and two articles published in the 
Journal of Instrumentation (JINST). The Petitioner has not claimed, and the evidence does not 
demonstrate, that he has reviewed more than 3 papers. The record is insufficient to confirm that his 
limited experience as a judge of others' work is indictive of his status as one of the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. 
In short, the evidence confirms that the Petitioner was involved in multiple large-scale collaborative 
research projects, while he was a student at the University of and as a research associate 
at thel I that led to his co-authorship of articles that received notable attention in the field. The 
Petitioner, however, has not specified his work, his duties, or demonstrated that his level of 
contributions to these projects that involved hundreds ofresearch scientists supports a finding that he 
is one of the small percentage of individuals who have risen to the very top of the field. The research 
and associated articles in which he was a primary contributor have received far lower level of attention 
and fewer citations. In addition, he has had limited judging experience, reviewing one paper for a 
conference and two papers for a journal. 
Based on the above discussed reasons, we conclude that the record in the aggregate does not support 
a finding that the Petitioner has achieved sustained national or international acclaim, that he is one of 
the small percentage at the very top of the field, and that his achievements have been recognized in 
the field through extensive documentation. See Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1119-20. Based on this finding, 
we need not consider the separate question of whether his entry would substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 6 
III. CONCLUSION 
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. Here, the Petitioner 
has established that he is an accomplished! I physicist who has been involved in multiple large­
scale collaborative research projects that have received notable attention from the field. As his 
supervisor at the indicates in his letter, the Petitioner's "research has helped to revolutionize 
[the] discipline [of physics] to a greater extent than most can claim." However, the record 
5 Sec also 6 USCJSPolicy Manual,supra, atF.2 (stating that an individual's participation should be evaluated to determine 
whether it was indicative ofbeingoneofthat small percentage who have risen to the very top ofthefield of endeavor and 
enjoying sustained national or international acclaim). 
6 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required 
to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach); sec also MattcrofL-A-C-, 26 I&NDec. 516,526 
n.7(BIA2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where anapplicantis otherwise ineligible). 
5 
does not sufficiently show that his level of recognition rises to the required level of 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, l 990);see also Section 203(b)(l )(A) 
of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner is one of the small 
percentage of individuals who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See Section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility to be classified as an 
individual of extraordinary ability in the field ofl physics. The appeal will be dismissed for the 
above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6