dismissed EB-1A Case: Radio-Optical Astroinformatics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF D-D-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY 22, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a research scientist, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in the 
field "radio-optical astroinformatics." 1 See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(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 petition, finding that the Petitioner had 
satisfied two of the initial evidentiary criteria, of which he must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he meets two additional criteria, relating to making original 
contributions of major significance in the field and performing in a leading or critical role. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), (viii). He maintains that he qualifies for the classification. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act makes visas available to certain immigrants 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
1 According to a June 2018 letter from! I a professor at I I University of Technology in the
Netherlands, the field of radio-optical astroinformatics is "new and rapidly developing" and it is "a sophisticated blend of 
traditional radio and optical astronomy and astrometry with advanced applied mathematics, computer science and 
information technologies." 
Matter of D-D-
(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 regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) sets forth two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence
requirements. First, a p etitioner can demonstrate a one-time achievement (that is, a major,
internationally recognized award). If the petitioner does not submit this evidence, then he or she must 
provide documentation that meets at least three of the ten criteria listed under 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items such as qualifying awards, published material in certain media,
and scholarly articles).
Where a p etitioner m eets these initial evidence requirements, we t hen consider the t otality of the 
submitted material in a final merits determination and assess whether the record, as a whole, shows 
sustained national or international acclaim and demonstrates that t he individual is among the small 
percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115, 1119-20 
(9th Cir. 2010) (discussing a two-part review where t he 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. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 
2d 1339, 1343 (W.D. Wash. 2011). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that t he
"truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but b y 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 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS
The Petitioner's resume and other documents show that he received his Doctor of Philosophy degree
in astrometry and celestial mechanics in 2012 from University. He worked 
as a postdoctoral scholar at the--------....-----------� between 2015 and 2018, 
and then b ecame a r esearch scientist at .__ _ __. in September 2018. According to his June 2018 
statement, "[ fJor more than eight years, [he has] been carrying out research in the area of Radio-Optical 
Astroinformatics." 
The Director concluded that t he Petitioner m et the participation as a judge criterion under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and the authorship of scholarly articles criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi).
The record supports this conclusion. Specifically, the Petitioner has offered evidence from
professional publications, including Astronomy and Computing, Journal of Geodesy, and Baltic
Astronomy, confirming that he served as one of their manuscript reviewers. In addition, the record
establishes that he has authored scholarly articl es that were published in professional journals. The
Astronomical Journal published his I I 
I article, and Experimental Astronomy published his 
I 
_____ __.I article. Although he has satisfied two criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 
2 
Matter of D-D-
(vi), as we will discuss below, he has not demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, 2 that he 
meets the initial evidence requirements of satisfying at least three criteria. 3 
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). 
The Petitioner maintains that he meets this criterion. To satisfy this criterion, he must establish that 
not only has he made original contributions but that they have been of major significance in the field. 
Major significance in the field may be shown through evidence that his research findings or original 
methods or processes have been widely accepted and implemented throughout the field, have 
remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major significance 
in the field. 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 ADll-14 8-9 (Dec. 22, 2010), https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Laws/
Memoranda/i-140-evidence-pm-6002-005-1.pdf. 
The record is insufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner has satisfied the criterion under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v). The Petitioner has published approximately 20 peer-reviewed articles. A 2018
online Google Scholar printout provides that the articles have received a total of 326 citations. The 
Google Scholar printout indicates that his most cited work is his 2012 article -------- -
1 which has been cited 72 times, and that his other 
articles have each received no more than 34 citations. 
The Petitioner has not presented sufficient evidence showing that the citation frequency, assuming it 
is accurate, confirms that his work has provoked widespread commentary or received notice from 
others in the field at a level consistent with "contributions of major significance in the field." l lthough
l the record includes some articles showing that the authors cited to his work and relied on his 
and I l, as well asl l in their studies, the Petitioner has not 
sufficiently demonstrated that his work has been cited as authoritative in the field or has otherwise 
influenced the field in a significant way. See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, supra, 8. 
The record also includes a Google Scholar printout listing the Petitioner's 2012 article as a top search 
result for the search query ----------- -As discussed, to satisfy this criterion, a 
petitioner must demonstrate his work's impact in the field as a whole. Even assuming arguendo that 
the Petitioner has contributed to one aspect in the field, without evidence of his impact in the field, as 
a whole, he has not met this criterion. The documentation in the record is insufficient to confirm that 
his work on .........,.-- ----- ........ --__.has influenced the field of"radio-optical astroinformatics," 
as a whole, rising to the level of "major significance." 
2 If a petitioner submits relevant, probative, and credible evidence that leads U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS) to believe that the claim is "more likely than not" or "probably true," the petitioner has satisfied the 
"preponderance of the evidence" standard of proof See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 4. 
3 The Petitioner has not alleged, and the record does not demonstrate, that he has received a major, internationally 
recognized award. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). As such, he must provide documentation that meets at least three of the 
ten criteria listed under 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) to satisfy the initial evidence requirements. 
4 The record indicates that I I 
3 
Matter of D-D-
The Petitioner has offered evidence showing that he has been invited to participate in a number of 
projects, including developing a new I lvision document, becoming a member 
o� I Committee, collaborating with the Joint Institute forl l 
and speaking at seminars. This evidence shows that he has been active and has shared his findings 
with others in the field. Such documentation, however, is insufficient to satisfy this criterion because 
it does not confirm that the impact of his work has risen to the level of major significance in the field. 
See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, 8. 
Similarly, evidence relating to the Petitioner's research activities does not demonstrate that he meets 
this criterion. The record shows that he has been named the principal investigator or co-investigator 
in a number of studies, and that he has been involved in studies that are funded by well-known 
organizations, such as the I I Foundation. Receiving funding to conduct research, 
without more, is not a contribution of major significance in the field. Rather, the Petitioner must 
establish that receiving grants or other similar funding are reflective of his past works' major 
significance, or that his research conducted with the funding resulted in contributions of major 
significance in the field. He has not made such a showing. 
In addition, while the record includes a number of reference letters, they are insufficient to confirm 
that the Petitioner satisfies this criterion. I I a member of the management team of the 
� in the Netherlands, andl I an assistant professor at the University of I I in 
South Africa, indicate that researchers in the field have implemented the Petitioner's work, finding it 
to be important. According tol I a professor for space geodesy atl !University of 
Technology in Sweden, "[the Petitioner's] models have been incorporated into I I I I operational software and have proven to be critical in its recent work, where it laid 
the base for novel observing conce...,__t_s _to_im---1..._ro_v_e_b_o_t_h ____________ ...--_____ __,
I I the director of the in New Zealand, 
provides that the Petitioner "introduced and implemented an innovated! 
I technique that significantly extends the capacities of the so-called I 
I t' In an August 2018 letter� I I a 
professor of astronomy at I ktates that "senior staff astronomers at NASA's [National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration] Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) and the U.S. Naval 
Observatory (USNO)" have expressed interest in hiring the Petitioner. 
These letters confirm that the Petitioner's work has value and has added to the general pool of 
knowledge in the field. Other letters similarly praise his research. For example.I l an 
associate professor at thee=] University of Technology (TUI I in the Netherlands, states that 
scientists have "continue[d] to build on the work [the Petitioner] has done, for which his insight and 
input has been, and will continue to be, invaluable." I I the director ofl I 
Observatory, explains that the Petitioner's "approach to precision 1s 
strongly rooted in established techniques such as..,__ ____________ but add a nuanced 
framework that allow these techniques to work on very narrow-band signals." 
While the record, including the reference letters, establishes that the Petitioner's research has value 
and has received some attention in the field, it is insufficient to confirm that the impact or influence 
of his work has risen to the level of "major significance" in the field. See Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1122 
4 
Matter of D-D-
(finding that "letters from physics professors attesting to [a petitioner's] contributions in the field" 
were insufficient to meet this criterion); Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 (upholding a finding that 
a ballroom dancer had not met this criterion because she did not demonstrate her impact in the field 
as a whole); see also USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, 8-9 (providing that "[l]etters 
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"). The Petitioner has not 
sufficiently shown that his research -which has led to incremental advancements in the field, as such 
are expected in any original research -qualifies as contributions of major significance in the field. 
For example, he has not presented evidence demonstrating that his research has provoked widespread 
commentary, has been referenced as authoritative, or has received notice from others at a level 
indicative of its "major significance" in the field, as required under the criterion. See Kazarian v. 
USCIS, 580 F. 3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009), aff'd in part, 596 F. 3d 1115, 1122 (9th Cir. 2010); 
USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9. Accordingly, based on the relevant 
documents in the record, the Petitioner has not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he has 
made original contributions of major significance in the field. 
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 Petitioner asserts that he meets this criterion. To satisfy this criterion, the evidence must establish 
that he is or was a leader. See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 10. If he claims 
to have performed a critical role, then he must establish that the role is or was of significant importance 
to the outcome or standing of the organization or its activities. A supporting role may be considered 
"critical" if his performance in the role is or was important in that way. It is not the title of the 
Petitioner's role, but rather his performance in the role that determines whether the role is or was 
critical. Id. 
The record is insufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner satisfies this criterion. While the 
documents show that he has played a critical role for certain studies, he has not established that he has 
played a leading or critical role for a qualifying organization or establishment. According to an August 
2018 letter from the Petitioner "has been critical for the success of two large-scale 
projects lead by..__ _ __. ,,_ __________ __,,.---__.the first robotic laser guide star 
adaptive optics system, and a wide-field sky astronomical survey 
using a new camera attached to the ....._ _______ ...,......... at the in 
California." The Petitioner has submitted materials indicating that I lis a university that has 
wide-ranging "research interests from quantum science and engineering to bioinformatics and the 
nature of life itself, from human behavior and economics to energy and sustainability." The Petitioner 
has not sufficiently demonstrated that his work on two projects confirms that he has performed a 
leading or critical role forl las a whole. 
Similarly, while the Petitioner has offered reference letters detailing his work, the record does not 
establish that he meets this criterion. For example, according to I t July 2018 letter, 
while employed as aDsu ort scientist the Petitioner made contributions to a number of research 
ro·ects, and" ioneered the technique, a modification of traditionalc=]that allows 
....._ ________ __,, __ ___." The evidence shows that -----�is the principal 
5 
Matter of D-D-
investigator for the ), which is one 
of eleven ______________ 5 experiments. _______ explains that the 
Petitioner's work "lies at the foundation" of the experiment. The record is insufficient to establish 
that the Petitioner's role was leading or critical fore=] as a whole. For example, he has not offered 
corroborating evidence confirming that he has held a leadership position within Dor is responsible 
for duties that make him a leader, or that he has contributed in a way that is of significant importance 
to the outcome or standing ofc=J as a whole. While most individuals involved with an organization 
will likely have some impact on the entity, to establish a critical role, the Petitioner must document 
that his work is crucial to the success of the entity. The Petitioner has not made such a showing here. 
Based on these reasons, he has not established, by a preponderance of the evidence, 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, upon a review of 
the record in its entirety, we conclude that it does not support a finding that he has established the 
acclaim and recognition required for this classification. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals who are 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 academic, scholarly, research, and 
professional accomplishments 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)(l)(A) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The record does not establish that the Petitioner qualifies for classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. The appeal will therefore be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each 
considered as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is 
the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofSkirball Cultural Ctr., 25 I&N Dec. 799,806 (AAO 2012). Here, that 
burden has not been met. 
5 According to a printout from I lthat the Petitioner has submitted.I hs the first large-class mi� ...... ..,
I !2015-2025 programme. Planned for launch in 2022 and arrival 
in 2029 it wi ll spend at least three years makin¥ detailed observations of the _____________ __. 
I J• 
6 
Matter ofD-D-
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of D-D-, ID# 3280465 (AAO May 22, 2019) 
7