dismissed EB-1A Case: Product Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF B-Z-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 5, 2017 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a product development director, 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the Form I-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 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 111 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 B-Z-
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). 
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. USCJS, 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. 20 13); R[jal v. USCJS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.O. 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 201 0). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is currently a product development director 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.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). In 
denying the petition, the Director found that the Petitioner met two 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). On appeal. the Petitioner 
maintains that he also meets the original contributions criterion under 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v). We have reviewed all ofthe evidence in the record, and conclude that 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 ajudge (~(the work ol 
others in the same or an allied.field ofspec(jication.fbr which classification is sought. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The record reflects that the Petitioner reviewed various manuscripts for professional publications. 
such as and Accordingly, the Director determined that the 
Petitioner satisfied this criterion, and we agree with that finding. 
2 
.
Matter of B-Z-
Evidence of the alien's original scient((ic. scholarly. artTsttc. athletic. or business-related 
contributions o,{major sign(jicance in thefield. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director applied an overly restrictive standard in 
determining whether he satisfied this criterion. Specifically, the Petitioner asserts that the Director 
erred by comparing him to others in the field who have garnered substantially more 
citations to their 
published works and by considering his overall standing in the field. We note that the Director's 
decision does include a discussion of the Petitioner's claimed contributions and an explanation of 
why they do not meet this criterion. We agree, however, that the analysis of whether the record 
shows sustained national or international acclaim and demonstrates the Petitioner is among the small 
percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor is a separate issue from whether he satisfies this 
criterion, and it should therefore have been discussed in a final merits determination if the Director 
determined he met at least three of the regulatory criteria. See Kazarian 596 F.3d at 1115. 
Accordingly, we will address the Petitioner's arguments on appeal and determine whether he has 
shown original contributions of major significance in the field consistent with the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The Director found that the Petitioner's 
publication record showed the originality of his work but did 
not reflect contributions of major significance in the field. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the 
Director 
should have focused on whether each ofthe Petitioner's original contributions was of major 
significance instead of concentrating on his cumulative citations. The Petitioner, however, has not 
sufficiently identified the specific contributions he has made through his written work, nor has he 
demonstrated that his citations for each of his published articles are commensurate with 
contributions of major significance. Generally, citations can serve as an indication that the field has 
taken interest in a petitioner's work. Although the Petitioner submitted screenshots from 
reflecting that 23 of his papers have been cited times, he did not indicate which 
articles, if any, he considered to be of major significance in the field. Nonetheless, in reviewing the 
citations for each of the articles, two of his articles published in have been 
cited and times, respectively, and two of his articles published in the 
have been cited and times, respectively. While the 
Petitioner's highest cited article received citations, he only presented one partial article 3 that 
cited to his paper, and it did not feature the Petitioner's article or extensively discuss it. In addition, 
the Petitioner did not provide samples that cited to his other three most cited articles demonstrating 
the foremost influence they have had on the field. For these reasons. the Petitioner has not 
established that his four highest cited articles are tantamount to original contributions of major 
significance in the field. 
I • (2013) and · 
(2014). 
(2012) and· ' (2009) . 
.. ' 
2016). 
3 
.
Matter of B-Z-
Regarding his other articles, the Petitioner provided excerpts from samples of articles that cited to 
his work. The articles, however, do not reflect that his work was singled out as particularly 
important or indicative of major significance. Rather, the papers credit the Petitioner for his 
research, along with all of the papers that are cited, but do not reflect that his work has been 
considered to hold major significance. For example, the record includes an incomplete paper 
entitled, ' 
2014), which discusses numerous findings including a citation to the 
Petitioner's article entitled, 
2013 ). The article briefly summarizes the peptide 
study and states that 
Neither the article nor the Petitioner explains how his research is an original contribution of major 
significance beyond summarizing the Petitioner's research findings. 
The Petitioner also offered the partial paper, '' 
( 20 15), in which the authors cite to his article, 
2015). The article highlighted the 
research but criticized the Petitioner's study through statements such as " 
In this case, the Petitioner has not 
established that the citation to his written work is reflective of a contribution "of major significance 
in the field." 
Further, in reviewing his recommendation letters, the authors mention the Petitioner's publication 
and citation history without specifying how his written work is considered an original contribution of 
major significance in the field. For example, professor at stated 
that the Petitioner's peer reviewed papers "clearly demonstrate[] both the applicability of his 
research and the high level of influence he holds over the field." 4 Although further discusses 
the Petitioner's findings, he does not demonstrate how the Petitioner's research has risen to a level of 
major significance in the field. 
In addition, the Petitioner submitted letters from other researchers who have cited to the Petitioner's 
articles in their own written work. For instance, professor at 
stated that he "benefited from [the Petitioner's] research in [his] 2009 publication,'' and 
"[the Petitioner's] astute observations ... shaped my own experiments and helped me produce a 
superior ... product." Although indicates that the Petitioner's research has 
helped his own work, he did not show or describe how the research has widely impacted the field, so 
as to demonstrate original contributions of major significance. See 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). 
4 While we discuss a sampling of the recommendation letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 
.
Matter of B-Z-
The Petitioner also provided about a dozen letters that confirm his contributions to authoring the 
papers and summarize the scientific findings but do not demonstrate that the publications are 
considered majorly significant in the field. For instance, department of engineering 
at indicated that the Petitioner "significantly 
contributed to the writing of the resultant manuscript" in without explaining how the journal 
article is considered of major significance in the field. did not, for example, discuss how 
the Petitioner's article is considered unusually int1uential or how the article has impacted the field in 
a significant way. 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), 
a.ffd in part, 596 F .3d 1115. In 2010, the Kazarian court reaffirmed its holding that we did not 
abuse our discretion in our adverse finding relating to this criterion. 596 F.3d at 1122. 
While the Petitioner further contends that his work has been implemented in the field thereby 
showing that it has been of major significance, the record does not sut1iciently corroborate 
widespread use of his work. Specifically, the Petitioner claims that his license agreement for his 
sponsored patent shows that his research has been commercialized. The 
record contains a letter from licensing liaison at who indicated 
that signed a license agreement for the Petitioner's patent for 
Although 
the letter ret1ects that is authorized the license for his patent, the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate whether ever successfully used or commercialized his research. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not shown how the licensing of his patent to is 
representative of an original contribution of major significance. In addition, the fact that a patent 
was issued based on the Petitioner's research or that companies have purchased the licensing rights 
do not necessary mean that his work has been of major significance. Rather, the Petitioner must 
demonstrate that the licensed or patented work has significantly influenced the field. 
Further, the Petitioner indicates that his two license agreements between and 
are further evidence of the commercialization of his research. Again, the Petitioner provided letters 
from stating that signed a licensing agreement with for the 
Petitioner's patents - ' and 
Regarding the •· 
patent, the Petitioner did not demonstrate the result of licensing agreement, and he did 
not show that "commercialized" his patent. Regardless, the commercialization of the 
Petitioner's patent is not necessarily evidence that it rises to a level of major significance. 
As it pertains to the patent, the record contains an article from the 
website regarding raising of two million dollars to begin commercialization of 
In addition, the Petitioner provided two order forms from 
and for the Further, the Petitioner submitted testimonial letters 
indicating the purchase of the For instance, field application 
specialist at stated that the Petitioner's has added significant value to our 
scanner product by enhancing t1uorescence signals in the [near infrared] region." The evidence 
c 
.
Matter of B-Z-
demonstrates that the Petitioner's work has been implemented and commercialized at some 
companies or laboratories, such as and Moreover, letter indicates that the 
Petitioner has received a total royalty of $3,23 7. However, the Petitioner did not establish that his 
has influenced the field at a level that constitutes major significance. The Petitioner 
did 
not show that his ·royalty distributions are indicative that it has been widely implemented or adopted 
in his field rather than by a select few who have ordered or used the material. See 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). 
In addition, the Petitioner offered a letter from professor at who 
stated that signed a sponsored research agreement with his lab based on the 
Petitioner's ' Further. the Petitioner provided 
evidence that he, along with other scientists, received a grant from the 
to conduct research for the ' 
The Petitioner, however, did not show the results of the research 
agreement and grant and whether they have been of major significance in the field. The fact 
that the Petitioner's research has been licensed is insufficient to meet this criterion unless the 
Petitioner establishes that his contributions have been of major significance in the field. 
The letters considered above primarily contain attestations of the Petitioner's status in the field 
without providing specific examples of how his 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, a.fl'd in part 596 F.3d at 1115. In 2010, 
the Kazarian court reiterated that the 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 U.S. Att 'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 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 (~f scholarly articles in the field. in prc~{essional or major 
trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3 )(vi). 
As discussed above, the Petitioner authored articles that were published in professional journals. 
such as and the Therefore. the 
Director found that the Petitioner satisfied this criterion, and we agree with that determination. 
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 
Matter of B-Z-
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 manuscript and paper reviews 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 sufficiently demonstrated 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 qualities for classification as an 
individual of extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter(~( B-Z-, ID# 557827 (AAO Oct. 5, 20 17)