dismissed EB-1A Case: Plant Pathology

MATTER OF E-T-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 24, 2018 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a research scholar, 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. 
§ 1153(b )(1 )(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 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 nova 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 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 
.
Matter of E-T-
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(h)( 4) allows a petitioner to submit comparable 
material 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 a beneficiary'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. USC IS, 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); Rijal v. USCJS, 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 of Chawathe , 25 l&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a research scholar in plant pathology at 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 met 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 for 
journals and at conferences, such as Plant Disease and the Mid-Western Educational Research 
Association. In addition, she authored scholarly articles in publications, such as Biology and 
Fertility Soils and BMC Genomics. 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. 
2 
.
Matter of E-T-
Evidence of the alien's original scient(fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions o_f 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 she made original contributions but that they have been of major significance in the field. 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 argues that she "was instrumental in the genomic sequencing of 
one the world's most prevalent plant pathogens. " Specifically, she states that 
"has been added to the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) database, and the 
NCBI has designated [her work] the representative genome" (emphasis in original). To support 
her claim, the Petitioner references screenshots from ncbi.nlm.nih.gov showing 
inclusion in the NCBI database. Moreover, the Petitioner provided a definition for "representative 
genome " as "a category in the NCBI Reference Sequence (RefSeq) project classification applied to a 
genome computationally or manually selected best genomes available for a species or clade that does 
not have a designated reference genome." Although the evidence reflects the originality of the 
Petitioner's contribution , it does not demonstrate that the genome's selection into NCBI's database 
or representative genome designation in-and-of-itself establishes a contribution of major significance 
in the field. She did not show, for example, that NCBI designation alone is considered to be majorly 
significant to her field. 
In addition , the Petitioner contends that her discovery "was supported by in-depth citatory statistics" 
and her "research has been cited at rates that far exceed the average in her field." The comparison of 
the Petitioner's overall number of citations to that of other scientists or researchers in her field is not 
appropriate in determining whether she has made original contributions of major significance in the 
field. Rather, the evaluation of the Petitioner's total citations relative to others in his field would be 
more relevant in a final merits determination to demonstrate her sustained national or international 
acclaim, that she is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor , and that her 
achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. 
Similarly , the Petitioner argues and offers evidence that four of her papers are in the top 10% most 
cited by subject area for the year in which they were published, having been cited 24, 22, 9, and 4 
times , respectively. The comparative ranking of a paper's citation rate does not automatically 
establish it as a majorly significant contribution to the field. Rather, the appropriate analysis is to 
determine whether a petitioner has shown that her individual articles , 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. USC/S, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009), aff'd in part, 596 F.3d 1115. Although 
citations show that her research has received attention from the field, including from others who 
3 
.
Matter of E-T-
have conducted scientific studies incorporating the Petitioner did not establish 
that the citations to her individual papers demonstrate their "major significance" by showing, for 
instance, that the citing works distinguish her research as being of particular importance on the topic. 
Likewise, while the Petitioner submitted emails from other researchers requesting the protocols, she 
did not show that a sampling of researchers utilizing her work reflects a contribution of major 
significance to the overall field.1 
Further, the Petitioner maintains that her recommendation letters "explicitly described the 
importance of [her] contributions to plant pathology." For instance2, professor 
stated that the Petitioner's "work has significantly 
advanced the field's knowledge of and was essential to completing the genome 
sequencing." Moreover, associate professor at the 
indicated that her "development of as a non-pathogenic strain of is 
a key contribution to plant biology and plant pathology." Although the recommendation letters 
praise the Petitioner for her work and indicate its originality, they do not establish that her research 
has been of major significance to the field. Instead, the letters detail the novelty of the Petitioner's 
research without showing why it has been considered of such importance and how its impact on the 
field rises to the level required by this criterion. The letters reference the NCBI database and the 
citation of her work by others, discussed above, but do not demonstrate that her publications or 
research have impacted the field in a substantial way. 
The letters considered above primarily contain attestations of the Petitioner's status in the field 
without providing specific examples of contributions that 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, ajf'd in part 596 F.3d at 1115. 
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 her burden of showing that she has made original 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
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 
1 See USC IS 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 ADJ 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 corroborate her impact in the field as a 
whole). 
2 While we discuss a sampling of the recommendation letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 
Matter of E-T-
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 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. 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 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). 
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 Matter of E-T-, ID# 1629210 (AAO Sept. 24, 2018) 
5