dismissed EB-1A Case: Physiology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 4581819 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 3, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a physiologist, seeks classification as an alien 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner had a one-time achievement (a major, internationally recognized award) 
or met at least three of the required evidentiary criteria. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability if: 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States . 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time achievement 
(that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, 
then he or she must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten 
categories listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x) (including items such as awards, published material 
in certain media, and scholarly articles). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) 
( 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 dete1mination); 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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a physiologist whose research has focused on using.__ ___ _____,, _____ ___, 
biology to develop new treatments for existing illnesses. The record reflects that he holds a M.S. and 
a Ph.D. in physiology froml I University. At the time of filing he was a visiting professor 
at the University I I' 
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). The Director found that the Petitioner met two of the evidentiary criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), relating to judging and scholarly articles. The record contains e-mails 
confirming that the Petitioner served as a peer reviewer for research articles appearing in 
Environmental Health Perspectives, Scientific Reports, and others. It also reflects that the Petitioner 
has published scholarly articles in professional publications such as Journal of Endocrinology, 
Molecular Therapy: Nucleic Acids, and Cancer Prevention Research. Therefore we agree with the 
Director that the Petitioner meets the criteria relating to judging and to scholarly articles at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi). 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he also meets the evidentiary criteria relating to original 
contributions of major significance. For the reasons discussed below, we find that he does not meet 
this additional regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's original scient(fic, 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 satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner must establish that not only 
has he made original contributions, but that they have been of major significance in the field. For 
1 The record reflects that the Petitioner had previously been granted H-lB status. 
2 
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. 
The Director determined that, while the record reflects the Petitioner's work is original in nature, it 
did not sufficiently establish that it was of major significance in the field. On appeal, the Petitioner 
submits a brief, a Google Scholar document containing his citation record, a Thomson/Reuters 
Clarivate Analytics report, and a statement from Thomas/Reuters Analytics discussing skew in 
statistical data. He asserts that the Director did not properly evaluate his citatory data, research papers 
referencing his work, or the advisory letters in the record, according to the requisite burden of proof. 
Specifically, the Petitioner argues that the Director neither fully discussed this evidence nor addressed 
how he weighted it in dete1mining that the record did not establish the Petitioner's eligibility for the 
classification sought. 
On appeal, the Petitioner first references the number of citations his research has garnered as evidence 
that his original contributions have risen to the level of major significance. He notes that "at least six 
of [his] articles have earned more citations than 90 % of other researchers who have published 
in the same field and time period."2 (emphasis in original.) Publications and presentations are not 
sufficient under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that they were of"major significance." See 
Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009), aff'd in part, 596 F.3d 1115. The Petitioner 
has not submitted evidence establishing that a comparison of his citation rates to an average of others 
in the field establishes the impact of his research. Accordingly he has not shown that his research has 
widely impacted the field in a manner reflecting major significance. 
The Petitioner further argues on appeal that his original research has been of major significance 
because his articles have been published in "top-ranked journals" as reflected by their impact factor, 
such as Leukemia and Cancer Research. A high impact factor reflects the publication's overall citation 
rate. However, the Petitioner does not submit evidence demonstrating that a publication's high impact 
factor indicates the influence or impact of his research on the field. The Petitioner therefore has not 
demonstrated that publication of his work in highly ranked journals shows that the field considers his 
research to be an original contribution of major significance. 
The Petitioner also asserts that the publication of his articles in these journals shows that the editors 
of these journals view his original contributions as "majorly significant." However, the record lacks 
evidence corroborating this assertion. Repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not 
satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 
(E.D.N.Y. 1989), aj)'d, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 
188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). Moreover, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory statements. 1756, 
2 We note the Petitioner's argument on appeal that the Director erroneously dismissed these percentiles are based on the 
grounds that the underlying baseline citation rates are frequently skewed. The Petitioner asserts that skew in these rates 
"does not impact the veracity of the data." (emphasis in original). The Thomson-Reuters document presented on appeal 
supports this assertion, stating this skew describes "a natural phenomenon of citation distributions: a few papers receive 
many cites, whereas most papers receive few or no cites" but that these rates "do not factor into the creation of' the 
percentiles, and are provided only for context. We note, as well, that the document indicates that these metrics are an 
evaluation of the "performance of the papers," rather than that of the authors. 
3 
Inc. v. The U.S. Atty Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). Without evidence from the journals' 
editors expressing their opinions on the significance of his work, the Petitioner's unsupported 
statement is not sufficient to show that the editors' selection of his work for publication demonstrates 
its major significance. 
The Petitioner argues on appeal that "the major significance of [his] work is also evident from the 
ma1111er in which others in his field have relied on his work" ( emphasis in original) and references the 
ori inal research of others in the record. 3 He references one Post raduate Medical Journal article, 
'-----------~~~----~~----~------------' noting that it identifies 
his work as a one of four "Key references." Publications are not sufficient under 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that they were of "major significance." See Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 
1036. Although funded and published work may be "original," this fact alone is not sufficient to 
establish that the work is of major significance. For example, peer-reviewed presentations at academic 
symposia or peer-reviewed articles in scholarly journals that 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 the alien's work as authoritative in the field, may be probative of the 
significance of the alien's contributions to the field of endeavor. 4 However, the Petitioner does not 
submit evidence establishing that this one article reflects that his research has provoked widespread 
commentary or has otherwise been widely recognized in the field of physiology. Without this 
evidence, the article is not sufficient to establish that the Petitioner's research constitutes an original 
contribution of major significance in his field of endeavor. 
The remainder of these research articles in the record do not distinguish the Petitioner's written work 
from the other articles cited or otherwise differentiate him from other researchers. For exam le, the 
article, 
.__ ____________________________ ___, cites to the Petitioner's 
research m conjunction with others without distinguishing him or his research from the other 
researchers. The Petitioner does not provide evidence showing how being cited jointly with the work 
of other researchers indicates that his research has widely impacted the field. Therefore he has not 
demonstrated that his original contributions are of major significance in the field. 
The Petitioner further argues on appeal that the frequency with which he is cited in research articles is 
indicative of the major significance of his contributions in the field.5 For example, he notes that his 
work has been cited 11 times in the article '---------------~~---~--' 
" and at least five times in other articles in the record. As '-----------------~ previously noted, publications are not sufficient under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that 
they were of "major significance." See Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036. Further, as discussed above, 
while work may be "original," this fact alone is not sufficient to establish that the work is of major 
significance. For example, peer-reviewed presentations at academic symposia or peer-reviewed 
3 While we discuss only a sampling of these articles here, we have reviewed all of the research presented in the record. 
4 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJJ-14 8 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
http://www.uscis.gov/laws/policy-memoranda. 
5 The Petitioner notes that in his November 2018 response to the Director's request for evidence, he provided articles 
wherein his research was cited 11, 3. 3, 5, 3, 4, 3, and 5 times. 
4 
articles in scholarly journals that 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 the 
alien's work as authoritative in the field, may be probative of the significance of the alien's 
contributions to the field of endeavor. 6 The Petitioner does not provide evidence establishing how 
being cited 11 or fewer times in research articles demonstrates that his work has provoked widespread 
commentaiy or received notice from others working in the field. Accordingly, he has not provided 
evidence sufficient to demonstrate that his work is of major significance in his field. 
Advisory letters in the record confirm the original nature of the Petitioner's research but are not 
sufficient to establish that these original contributions have been of major significance in the 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. Letters that lack specifics and use hyperbolic language 
do not add value and are not considered to be robative evidence that ma form the basis for meetin 
this criterion. 7 , L-------------------1----,__ ____ __J 
I I Department of Biology and Biochemistry at the University .__ ___ discusses the 
Petitioner's research into the role of I I reproductive system, noting that he 
" was "one of the first scientists to clone this receptor," and 
.... "_d_f m-o-u-st-rt-t-ed-th_a_t-it_i_s -p-re-s-en_t_i_n-th-e'l==-------,1, I I states that the Petitioner's work 
on howed thatl I reproductive system." He also discusses 
the Petitioner's 2013 General and Comparative Endocrinology article, noting that it "sheds~ 
on the relationship betwee~ [" I I Principal Investigator at thel___J 
Institute of Biochemistry and Cell Biology, discusses the Petitioner's work inl I noting that 
the technique developed by the Petitioner "overcomes the shortcomings associated wit~ I 
therapies for muscle disorders and is therefore of great interest to his field." 
While these letters confirm the originality of the Petitioner's work, they do not provide detailed 
examples showing how it has been widely implemented in or has widely impacted the field of 
physiology or has othe1wise been of major significance in the field. Without additional detail 
explaining his accomplishments as they relate to new or innovative techniques or findings, the letters 
do not establish that the Petitioner's work has widely impacted the field such that it rises to the level 
of major significance. 
Two additional letters do rovide descri tions of how others have built upon his original work in 
research studies. ssociate Professor of Medicine, Division of 
-----~---~University'--------~ addresses the Petitioner's research related to 
~---~and its effectiveness in fighting cancers. He explains the Petitioner "investigated the 
molecular mechanisms behind this effect," referencing a clinical study in Italy in which the 
researchers' "strategy of using '-----------~ as a I I rather than 
was specifically derived ~rom [the P~titioner's] work on this matter." 
._H_e_c-on_c_l_u_d-es-th_a_t_, -as-th_i_s_s_tu__,dy was "able to show thad .... ___ __,) does inhibit growth for certain 
types of tumors," it demonstrates that the Petitioner's research is "leading directly to improvements in 
care for cancer patients." 
6 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8. 
7 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 9; see also Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036 (holding that 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). 
5 
~--------~Head ofN euroscience and Director of the at I~-~ 
Un~alaysia, discusses the Petitioner's work on~--~ He notes that a group working for 
the L__J National Research Council "built on [ the Petitioner's] work by investigating I I 
activity in European sea bass," and that the Petitioner's research "influenced researchers ... in their 
study o~~---~~ s impact on the electrical activity of hormone neurons." 
While bothl landl !provide detailed examples showing how the Petitioner's research 
has been used by other researchers, they do not explain or demonstrate how this is indicative that it 
has widely impacted the overall field. 8 In the absence of this additional information, these letters do 
not establish the major significance of the Petitioner's work in the field of physiology. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that he meets 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. 
8 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1 supra, at 8-9; see also Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 (upholding 
a finding that a ballroom dancer had not met this criterion because she did not corroborate her impact in the field as a 
whole). 
6