dismissed EB-1A Case: Physiology

MATTER OF J-V-R-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: DEC. 11, 2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITlON: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a physiology researcher, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability 
in the sciences. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. 
§ I 153(b)(I )(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 Acting Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for 
Alien Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had satisfied only two of the ten initial evidentiary 
criteria, of which she must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional documentation and a brief, arguing that she meets at 
least three of the ten criteria. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) 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 ent_ry 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 
.
Matter of J-V-R-
at 8 C .F.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). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(11)(4) allows a petitioner to submit comparable 
material if he or she is able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5(h)(3 )(i)-(x) do not 
readily apply to the individual's occupation . 
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. 20 I 0) 
(discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the 
required number of criteria, ~onsidered in the context of a final merits determination) ; see also 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F . Supp . 3d 126, 131-32 (O.O.C. 2013); R(fal 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 evidcnc ·e 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 determi!)C whether the fact to be proven is 
probably true." Matier ,?{Chawarhe, 25 l&N Dec . 369, 376 (AAO 2010) . 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a post-doctoral research fellow scholar in the Department of Molecular and 
Integrative Physiology at the Because she has not indicated or established 
that she has received a major, internationally recognized award, she must satisfy at least three of the 
alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5(h)(3)(i)-(x). In denying the petition, the Director 
found that the Petitioner n.1et only two of the initial evidentiary criteria, judging under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and scholarly articles under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). The record reflects that the 
Petitioner served as a peer reviewer of manuscripts and posters for journals and a conference. In 
addition, she authored scholarly articles in professional publications. Accordingly, we agree with 
the Director that the Petitioner fulfilled the judging and scholarly articles criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that she meets one additional criterion, discussed below. We 
have reviewed all of the evidence in the record and conclude that it does not support a finding that 
the Petitioner satisfies the requirements of at least three criteria. 
Evidence <?f the alien ·s original scient[fic, scholarly. artislic. alhlelic. or business-relared 
contribwions <~/'major signfficance in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204 .S(h)(J)(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 she rriade original contributions but that they have been of major significance in the field. For 
2 
Maller ,f.1-V-R-
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 contends that the Director did not properly evaluate the 
totality of her evidence relating to her citation record and recommendation letters. 
As it relates to her citation record, the Petitioner provides updated information from Google Scholar 
reflecting citations for each of her published papers. 1 In addition, she submits data from Clarivate 
Analytics showing the baseline citation rates, baseline percentiles, and thresholds for high citations 
for various research fields' from 2008 - 2018. Further, the Petitioner argues that "citation percentiles 
over citation aggregate comparisons" offers a better evaluation of the importance of a scientific 
article. Moreover, she contends that "[a] better method for evaluating significance is to compare 
citations counts between articles published in !he same field in the same year" (emphasis in 
original). 2 
Specifically, the Petitioner argues that five of her articles rank among the top I 0% most cited across 
her field for their respective years: 2013 Journal <~f Clinical Endocrinology and Melaholism article 
- 79 cites, 2012 .Journal of Endocrinology article - 62 cites. 2015 Journal <!{Clinical Endocrinology 
and Metabolism article - 28 cites, 2016 Biochemistry article - 14 cites, and 2016 Journal of Steroid 
Biochemislfy and Molecular Biology - 13 cites. The comparative ranking of a paper's citation rate, 
however, does not automatically establish it as a majorly significant contribution to the field. nor arc 
we persuaded that every journal article ranked in the top I 0% is necessarily considered by the field 
to be considered as an original contribution of major significance. 3 Furthermore, Clarivatc Analytics 
indicates that it considers the following thresholds for "highly cited articles" in the Biology and 
Biochemistry field: 135 cites (2012), 109 cites (2013), 56 cites (2015), and 30 cites (2016). Even if 
we were persuaded by the Petitioner's arguments, her citations for the respective years are far below 
Clarivate Analytics' threshold for highly cited articles. 
Here, the appropriate analysis is to determine whether a petitioner has shown that her findings, 
factoring in citations and other corroborating evidence, have been considered important at a level 
consistent with original contributions of major significance in the field. 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), qff"d in par!, 
596 F.3d 1115. Although her citations show that her research has received some attention from the 
field, the Petitioner did not establish that the number of citations to her individual papers 
demonstrate their "major significance." 
1 The record shows that she has authored 12 papers in professional joumals. 
2 In support of her arguments, the Petitioner references the papers, "A quantitative analysis of indicators of scientific 
perfonnance" (Scientometrics, 2008) and "How to evaluate individual researchers working in the natural lite sciences 
meaningfully? A proposal of methods based on percentiles of citations'· (Scientometrics, 2014). 
3 For instance, according to the data from Clarivate Analytics. Biology and Biochemistry papers published in 2017 
receiving only four citations and in 2018 only one citation arc in the top 10%. The Petilioner has not demonstrated that 
papers wlth such citation counts have necessarily had a major, significant impact or influence in the field as evidenced by 
being among the top I 0% of most highly cited articles according to year of publication. 
3 
.
Maller of.J-V-R-
Moreover, the Petitioner contends that "her research has been foundational to later explorations in 
her discipline" and references samples of other articles that cited to her work. The articles, however, 
do not distinguish the Petitioner's written work from the other articles cited. For example, in a 
Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology article, the authors cited to her 20 l 3 .Journal <d' Clinical 
Endocrinology article along with 54 articles by others, without noting or highlighting the importance 
of the Petitioner's findings or differentiating her work from the other cited articlcs.4 The articles do 
not show the significance of the Petitioner's research to the overall field and the record docs not 
show that either the individual or collective citations to her findings are reflective of "major 
significance" consistent with this regulatory criterion. 5 
In addition, the Petitioner maintains that she provided recommendation letters by "independent 
experts who have little reason to support [her] petition apart from the value of her participation in 
their mutual field of expertise." The letters, however, do not demonstrate the Petitioner has made 
original contributions of major significance to the field. Instead, the authors recount the Petitioner's 
research ahd findings, indicate their publications in journals, and mention her citation numbers 
without showing how her research is viewed by the field as being important and how its impact on 
the field rises to the level required by this criterion. Letters that specifically articulate hovv a 
petitioner's contributions are of major significance to the field and its impact on subsequent work 
add value.6 On the other hand, letters that lack specifics and simply use hyperbolic language do not 
add value, and are not considered to be probative evidence that may form the basis for meeting this 
criterion. 7 
For instance, , professor at the , described the Petitioner's 
work and findings with human adrenal gland studies, but he did not explain the significance of her 
research to the field or how it has greatly influenced other researchers or scientists.8 Similarly, 
. assistant professor at the summarized the Petitioner's project 
study, indicated her roles, and concluded that her "contributions to this project were essential for the 
main experiments of the work, and she was directly involved in the analysis that led to the article's 
findings." While attested to the Petitioner's importance to the study and subsequent 
article, she did not demonstrate how the field considers them to be of major significance. In 
addition, professor at the indicates that 
he "will be working together [ with the Petitioner]" and states that "our collaborative project will 
identify the amount of 11-ketotestosterone that is biologically active," "will transform the scientific 
4 Although we cite to a sample. we have reviewed and considered each of the submitted ai1icles. 
5 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, Evaluation ff Evidence Suhmitted with Cerlain Form 1- /40 
Petitions; Revisions to the Ac(judicator 's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2. AFM Update ADI 1-14 8-9 (Dec. 22. 20 I 0). 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html: 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 con-oborate her impact in the field as a 
whole). . 
~ See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, supra. at 8-9. 
7 Id. 
s Although we discuss a sampling of letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 
.
Malter of J-V-R-
and· medical understanding," and "our combined efforts will help define the role of 11-
ketotestosterone in these diseases." However, the cunent impact of her upcoming research has not 
been established, and did not show how her work already qualifies as a contribution 
of major significance. Letters that repeat the regulatory language but do not explain how an 
individual's contributions have already influenced the field are insutlicient to establish original 
contributions of major significance in the field. Kazarian, 580 F.3d at l 036, q/fd in part 596 F.Jd at 
1115. Moreover, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory statements. 1756. Inc. "· The U.S. 
Att) 1 Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
Finally, the Petitioner maintains that she has been funded to conduct research from the 
and the 
Receiving funding to conduct research is 
not a contribution of major significance in-and-of itself. Rather, the Petitioner must establish that 
receiving the grants are reflective of her past works' major significance, or that her research 
conducted with the grants resulted in contributions of major significance in the field. Although the 
Petitioner provided evidence showing her receipt of the funding research, she did not demonstrate 
that such funding reflected the importance of her contributions, nor do they indicate the research 
results and whether they are majorly significant in the field. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not shown that she has made original 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
IIJ: 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 l&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r. 1994). 
Here, the Petitioner has not shown that the significance of her 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. IO 1-723, 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 she is one of the small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Act and 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(2). 
5 
Maller{?/ J-V-R-
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that she qualifies for classification as an 
individual of extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Maller qf.1-V-R-, ID# I 805464 ( AAO Dec. I I , 2018) 
6