dismissed EB-1A Case: Physics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF G-S-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 13, 2017 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a physicist and computational researcher, seeks classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability in the sciences. 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had satisfied two of the initial evidentiary criteria, of which 
he must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits documentation and a brief, stating that he satisfies at least three 
criteria. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act makes visas available to qualified 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 m the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
.
Matter of G-S-
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.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation 
at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate 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 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 ac~laim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. US CIS, 596 F .3d 1115 (9th Cir. 201 0) 
(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. USC!S, 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 ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is the director of research computing at 
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 ten criteria at 8 C.P.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). In 
denying the petition, the Director found that the Petitioner met two criteria: scholarly articles under 
8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) and leading or critical role under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he meets the criteria for judging under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and original contributions under § 204.5(h)(3)(v). We have reviewed all of the 
evidence in the record, and conclude it does not support a finding that the Petitioner satisfies the 
plain language requirements of at least three criteria. , 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work ol 
others in the same or an allied field of specification for which class(fication is sought. 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The Petitioner maintains that his numerous requests to review articles for journals, such as the 
and 
meet this criterion. The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) requires the 
Petitioner to establish that he has participated as a judge of the work of others. In denying the 
2 
.
Matter of G_-S-
petition, the Director noted that, although the record shows that he was invited to assess work for 
· journals, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he actually judged the articles or_papers. On appeal, 
the Petitioner contends that "[i]n order to receive such a large request-base, [he] would have had to 
build up a reputation in his field as an extraordinary reviewer - which he would not have been able 
to do had he ignored the requests he had previously received." The Petitioner did not, however, 
provide documentation to support this assertion, nor did he present additional evidence from the 
journals confirming his critiques or reviews. 
Similarly, the Petitioner provided emails thanking the Petitioner for volunteering to judge student 
posters at the upcoming 2013 conference 
and inquiring about his availability for the 2014 and 2015 Further, the Petitioner submitted 
emails indicating that he received requests and agreed to review papers for the 
The record, however, does not contain evidence showing 
that he, in fact, evaluated the posters or papers or otherwise judged them. 
In addition, the Petitioner offered emails regarding to his involvement in a mentorship program at 
Specifically, the emails relate to the introduction and pairing of mentors with proteges. The· 
documentation, though, does not indicate that the Petitioner participated as a judge of the work of 
others rather than acting in the capacity as an advisor or mentor. 
The Petitioner also presented a letter from director for the 
who stated that the Petitioner served on a panel in 2016 and as a 
committee member in 2015 and 2016. however, did not elaborate or explain the 
Petitioner's duties or responsibilities to demonstrate that they included serving as a judge of the 
work of others. On appeal, the Petitioner states that the Director's "argument that being on a panel 
at a scientific conference does not constitute serving as a reviewer is illogical, because said panels 
always function as such." He does not, however, offer documentary evidence to support that 
assertion or to confirm his actual duties at the conferences. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits an appreciation certificate from for his 
"membership and Contribution to the group for ' an email 
asking the Petitioner if he wants have access to ' and an email requesting his 
interest in attending an upcoming training workshop. All of the documents, however, pertain to 
events occurring after the filing of the initial petition. The Petitioner must establish that all 
eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time of the filing 
and continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F .R. § 103 .2(b )(1 ). Moreover, the Petitioner's evidence 
does not indicate evidence of his participation as a judge of the work of others consistent with the 
requirements of this regulatory criterion. For these reasons, th'e Petitioner has not established that he 
meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
3 
.
Matter of G-S-
The Petitioner contends that the citations of his work by others and his recommendation letters 
demonstrate his eligibility for this criterion. The record contains screenshots from 
that show he published 3 7 papers, which have been cited 535 times. Specifically, the majority of his 
citations derived from two articles published in (194 citations) and 
~-
(114 citations). Generally, citations can serve as an indication that the field has 
taken interest in a petitioner's work. Here, the number of his citations shows that his research and 
work have garnered attention from others. However, the Petitioner has not sufficiently identified 
what contributions he has made through his publications or explained their significance in the field. 
In reviewing his recommendation letters, the authors do not mention the and 
articles or otherwise discuss how his published work rises to a level of original 
contributions of major significance in the field. In fact, only two of his recommendation letters 
reference his published research and they summarize his authorship and citation history without 
explaining how the underlying work and the resulting articles have been of major significance. For 
instance, professor at stated that the Petitioner's "results are published in 
prestigious journals," "[h]e was co-author on many articles on the of on 
and ' and "[h]is work is cited in more than 400 publications." In 
addition, associate chair at indicated that the Petitioner "is a prolific 
writer and published or peer-reviewed scientific papers himself." Neither author describes how the 
Petitioner's written work has been highly influential or how his research has impacted the field. 
Publications are not sufficient under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that they were of 
"major significance." Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009), aff"d in part, 
596 F.3d 1115. In 2010, the Kazarian court reaffirmed its holding that we did not abuse our 
discretion in our adverse fipding relating to this criterion. 596 F .3d at 1122. 
Rather than describing specific significant contributions that he has made to the greater field, the 
Petitioner's recommendation letters elaborate on his role and contributions to For example, 
director of advance research computing at the discussed the 
Petitioner's "continuation of the building and implementation of [high-performance computing] and 
other computing resources at . to benefit the entire ' Another reference, 
associate chair at stated that "[the Petitioner's] improvements became very 
apparent to administration, and that led to [the Petitioner] being put in charge of a very 
important He further explains that the Petitioner was asked to build a high-
performance computer cluster, called which "is so heavily used by researchers 
that we are continually striving to add more compute nodes and other critical components to meet 
the demand." Moreover, chief technology officer at the 
indicated that the Petitioner "has created several extensions to meet the 
needs of his university." Although the authors expressed that they are impressed by the Petitioner's 
work, they did not demonstrate the significance of it beyond See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 
I,, 
2 ,, 
4 
(2007). 
(2008). 
.
Matter of G-S-
134-35 (upholding a finding that a ballroom dancer had not met this criterion because she did not 
corroborate her impact in the field). 
The Petitioner also provided a letter from program director at the 
who stated that the Petitioner 
provided his assessment of two high performance supercomputing resources (' and 
, developed by and the Although 
stated that the Petitioner's work constituted "prominent contributions'' towards 
consideration of acquiring, deploying, and operating the resources, he did not establish the 
significance of his contributions in the field. 
Further, the references discuss the Petitioner's "unique" professional and personal qualities. For 
instance, associate chief information officer at stated 
that the Petitioner "brings together the three essential skill sets required for effectively building, 
growing, and maintaining an effective research computing program - scientific research experience, 
technical expertise ... and teaching/mentoring expertise," and the Petitioner "is a rare model of the 
balance of skills needed for this essential role to support research computing." In addition, 
indicated that "[fJinding someone with this breadth of expertise is uncommon," and 
"when one combines his personal interactions and his professional skills, one concludes that [the 
Petitioner] adds to and enriches the American society in multiple dimensions." Another reference, 
professor at claimed that the Petitioner's "unique skill set is the result of 
many years of diligent efforts on his part to not only understand the science behind the algorithms he 
writes and uses but also the computational aspects." Having a diverse or rare skill set is not a 
contribution of major significance in and of itself. In this case, the authors did not demonstrate how 
the Petitioner has used those unique skills to impact the field at a significant level. 
The letters considered above do not provide specific examples of how the Petitioner's contributions 
rise to a level consistent with major significance. Letters that repeat the regulatory language but do 
not explain how an individual's contributions have already influenced the field are insufficient to 
establish original contributions of major significance in the field. Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036, aff'd 
in part 596 F.3d at 1115. In 2010, the Kazarian court reiterated that USCIS' conclusion that the 
"letters from physics professors attesting to [the petitioner's] contributions in the field" were 
insufficient was "consistent with the relevant regulatory language." 596 F.3d at 1122. Moreover, 
USCIS need not 
accept primarily conclusory statements. 1756, Inc. v. The US Att 'y Gen., 745 F. 
Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). For these reasons, the Petitioner has not met his burden of showing 
that he has made original contributions of major significance in the field. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the .field, in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media. 8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
As discussed above, the Petitioner authored articles that were published in professional journals, 
such as and Therefore, the Director found that the Petitioner 
satisfied this criterion, 
and we agree with that determination. 
5 
.
Matter of G-S-
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
The Director determined that the Petitioner met this criterion. As indicated above, the Petitioner 
provided letters regarding his critical role with an institution with a distinguished reputation. 
Accordingly, we agree with the Director's findings for 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 level of expertise 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). In the case here, 
the Petitioner has not shown that his poster and paper review requests are indicative of the required 
sustained national or international acclaim. See section 203(b )( 1 )(A) of the Act. Without evidence 
that sets him apart from others in his field, such as evidence that he has a consistent history of 
completing a substantial number of review requests relative to others, served in an editorial position 
for a distinguished journal or publication, or chaired a technical committee for a reputable 
conference, the Petitioner has not established his peer review requests places him among that small 
percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). Further, the 
Petitioner has not provided documentation demonstrating that his authorship and citation history is 
consistent with being among the small percentage at the top of his field or having a "career of 
acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 
1990). Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner's work has garnered 
national or international acclaim in the field. See section 203(b)(l)(A) ofthe Act. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that he qualifies for classification as an 
individual of extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofG-S-, ID# 536887 (AAO Sept. 13, 2017)