dismissed EB-1A Case: Remote Sensing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF K-S-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT.l2,2017 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a remote sensing 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. 
§ 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that although the Petitioner satisfied three of the regulatory criteria, he did not 
show sustained national or international acclaim and demonstrate that he is among the small 
percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a briet: arguing that he has sustained the required acclaim and has 
risen to the very top of his field. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(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 m the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
.
Matter qf K-S-
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top ofthe 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 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). Alternately, 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. USCIS, 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. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS. 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 q{Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a research associate working at the 
through an agreement with the at the 
As 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). 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
The Director found that the Petitioner met the following three criteria: judging under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). original contributions under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), and scholarly articles under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). The Petitioner's documentary evidence indicates that he has peer 
reviewed manuscripts for several journals and authored articles that have appeared in professional 
publications. While the record therefore demonstrates the Petitioner's eligibility under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the evidence does not support the Director's determination that he has 
made original contributions of major significance in the field. Upon review. we conclude that the 
a component of the 1 is responsible for hosting and 
providing public access to environmental data archives containing comprehensive oceanic, atmospheric. and geophysical 
data. 
2 
.
Matter of K-S-
record does not support a finding that the Petitioner meets the plain language requirements of at least 
three criteria. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient?fic. scholarly. artistic. athletic. or business-related 
contributions o,fmajor significance in thefield. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
As evidence under this criterion, the Petitioner submitted his publications and presentations, citation 
evidence for his published work, and letters of recommendation from colleagues. The Director 
found that this documentation demonstrated the Petitioner's original contributions of major 
significance in the field. For the reasons outlined below, we find that the Petitioner has not 
submitted sufficient documentary evidence showing that he meets the plain language of this 
criterion. Accordingly, the Director's determination on this issue will be withdrawn. 
On appeal, the Petitioner indicates that he has authored 11 articles ··in highly ranked and prestigious 
scientific journals" and that other researchers "have used, referenced, and cited his research in their 
own work." With respect to the Petitioner's publication of his work, the regulations contain a 
separate and distinct criterion concerning the authorship of scholarly articles in professional 
publications at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), a category that he has already satisfied. In Kazarian v. 
USCJS, 580 F.3d 1030. 1036 (9th Cir. 2009), the court held that publications and presentations are 
not sufficient evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that they were of "major 
significance" in the field. In 2010, the Kazarian court reaffirmed its holding that we did not abuse its 
discretion in finding that the petitioner had not demonstrated contributions of major significance. 596 
F.3d at 1122. Furthermore, there is no presumption that every published article or conference 
presentation is a contribution of major significance in the field; rather, a petitioner must document 
the actual impact of his article or presentation. 
As one type of evidence of the impact of his work, the record includes a 2016 
citation report indicating that the Petitioner's 2007 article entitled · 
was 
"cited by 15 .''2 His next most cited article, ' 
(2007) was 
"cited by 13'' including self-citations. Regarding the remaining articles the Petitioner has authored, 
the aforementioned report reflects seven or less citations for each. 
Generally, citations can confirm that the field has taken interest in a researcher's work. The 
Petitioner submitted several examples of articles that cited to his work; however they do not reflect 
that his work was singled out as particularly important. Rather, the Petitioner's findings were 
utilized as background information to the authors' papers. In this case. the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that the citations to his work, considered both individually and collectively. are 
commensurate with contributions "of major significance in the field." 
2 The record reflects that at least five of these citations were self-cites by the Petitioner. 
.
Matter of K-S-
The Petitioner also provided a webpage from the listing him among six contributors to its 
but the record does not show 
how his work has impacted others in the field. The plain language of the regulation requires that the 
Petitioner's original contributions be "of major significance in the field" rather than mainly affecting 
data projects for his employer. 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). 
As another form of evidence under this criterion, the Petitioner contends that a number of experts 
have offered testimony regarding the significance of his work. 3 Several of these references asserted 
that they have utilized the Petitioner's findings in their research. For example. a 
research fellow at indicates that the Petitioner's work ··Jed to a very reliable 
regional empirical model for the determination of the water vapor weighted-mean temperature for 
the Indian region'' and "that the results from this empirical model have a similar performance with 
our results." The evidence, however, does not show that the Petitioner's work has substantially 
influenced the field or otherwise rises to the level of an original contribution of major significance in 
the remote sensing field. 
In addition, with respect to the Petitioner's findings in 
a senior physical scientist with the 
states that her division used the Petitioner"s findings "related to the production of sea surface 
temperature retrievals" to create an "improved version of sea surface temperature analyses:· She 
further explains that his "work allowed us to have a better understanding about our product by 
comparison with other similar products."' Furthermore, a professor at 
and a sensor scientist at both assert that they were .. able to 
utilize [the Petitioner's] findings in [their] own research."' While the aforementioned three scientists 
have cited to the Petitioner's work concerning selection of a first-guess sea surface temperature field 
as input to radiative transfer models, the record does not show that his findings have affected the field 
in a major way, that his research has been widely utilized or heavily cited, or that his work otherwise 
constitutes contributions of major significance in the field. 
The Petitioner also provides a letter from chief scientist at . a company 
that manufactures microwave radiometers for environmental remote sensing. asserts that 
the Petitioner's ''contributions in satellite product optimization have been consistently used by 
government and private organizations," but he does not offer specific examples of such utilization. 
nor does the record support the assertion that the Petitioner's work has been widely implemented. 
While the Petitioner's employers and project collaborators have utilized his work. this does not 
necessarily reflect that his research is considered of major significance in the field. 
' We discuss only a sampling of these letters, but have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 
According to the Petitioner's citation report, his article in this journal was cited to seven times. 
4 
.
Matter of K-S-
executive director of the at the 
discusses the Petitioner's work as a member of the 
archival team and this team's project to develop a database for surface 
temperatures ofthe world's oceans. notes the Petitioner's support of··the long 
time scientific stewardship of 90+ products'' and "the next version of the data of 
In addition, he mentions the Petitioner's study to understand the 
implications of a U.S. west coast drought and "its relationship to the anomalies over this 
region," but does not offer specific examples of how this work has influenced the remote sensing 
field, or has otherwise been of major significance. 
Another team member, a semor data engmeer at the 
describes the 
Petitioner's work for as part of a project for the 
indicates that the Petitioner handled satellite data for retrieval and 
developed algorithms that implemented ''the radiative transfer model to account for the atmospheric 
effect in the thermal bands." He further states that the Petitioner's aforementioned ··work for 
the team was acknowledged by the committee that is 
responsible for the satellites."
6 
While the Petitioner received a certificate of 
appreciation from the managers, this form of internal recognition is not sullicient to 
demonstrate that his work rises to the level of a scientific contribution of major significance in the 
field. 
In addition, notes that the Petitioner's research findings on the aforementioned 
project were published in and presented at various 
professional conferences. Similarly, a former senior scientist at who now 
works for the 
points to the Petitioner's "record of published scientific work'' and asserts that his findings have 
"significantly advanced our knowledge and understanding of oceanographic remote sensing." We 
recognize that research must add information to the pool of knowledge in some way in order to be 
accepted for publication, presentation, funding. or academic credit, but not every individual who 
performs original research has inherently made a contribution of ·'major significance" to the field. 
As discussed above, the Petitioner has not shown through his citation history or other evidence that 
his work, once published or presented, has been of major significance in the tield. Again. while 
selection of the Petitioner's articles for inclusion in professional journals or conference proceedings 
verifies the originality of his work, it does not necessarily reflect that his research is considered of 
major significance. 
5 The represents a partnership between and to build a next-generation 
that will collect data on long-term climate change and short-term weather conditions. 
6 
The record includes a "Certificate of Recognition'' jointly issued by managers from and thanking 
the Petitioner ''for all of your hard work and dedication which contributed to the successful launch and commission of 
5 
.
Matter of K-S-
Ultimately, letters that repeat the regulatory language but do not explain how a petitioner's 
contributions have already inf1uenced the field are insufficient to establish original contributions of 
major significance in the field. Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036, affd in pari, 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. The letters considered above primarily contain 
discussions of the Petitioner's research projects, technical skills, and remote sensing experience 
without providing specific examples of how his contributions rise to a level consistent with major 
significance in the field. 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). Without sutlicient evidence demonstrating that 
his work constitutes original scientific contributions of major significance in the field, the Petitioner 
has not established 
that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role .fi>r organizalions or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
The Petitioner contends that he has performed in a leading or critical role as a research associate for 
In general, a leading role is evidenced from the role itselt~ while a critical role is one in 
which an individual was responsible for the success or standing of the organization. The record 
includes an organizational chart for the predecessor, 
but the Petitioner's research associate position is not shown. This evidence does not indicate where 
the Petitioner's role fits within the overall hierarchy of the so as to demonstrate that it was a 
"leading" position 
within the organization. 
He also provides two letters of support each from 
and 
deputy director of the 
deputy director (acting) of the 
at Both individuals attest to the critical nature of the Petitioner's 
work on projects for For example, states that the Petitioner '·acquires. preserves, 
disseminates, and ensures the long-term utility of surface oceanographic data, which supports 
in meeting its mission of scientific stewardship of environmental data." In addition, 
asserts that the Petitioner "has undertaken a critical role" in various projects "of vital importance to 
· such as his work on the team, the cloud pilot project with 
and the project. Furthermore, as previously mentioned, the 
record includes a "Certificate of Recognition" from two managers at and 
thanking the Petitioner for contributing "to the successful launch and commission of 
While the Petitioner has worked on various projects for and supported its mission, he did not 
provide sufficient documentary evidence to show that his duties and responsibilities were critical for 
the organization as a whole. The submitted documentation does not differentiate the Petitioner from 
the other scientists and managers, and is insutlicient to establish that his work as a research 
associate has contributed to the organization in a way that was of substantial importance to its success 
.
Maller of K-S-
or standing. Furthermore, although the Petitioner offered information about from its website. 
he did not provide documentation demonstrating its distinguished reputation in the field. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
The Petitioner is not eligible because he has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a 
qualifying one-time achievement or documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria listed at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Thus, we do not need to fully address the totality of the materials in a 
final merits determination. See Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 7 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 level of expertise required for the classification sought. 
As mentioned above, the Petitioner has reviewed manuscripts, conducted original research. and 
authored scholarly articles and conference presentations. Regarding the Petitioner's work as the 
judge of others, he has not presented documentation 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, to establish that his peer review experience places 
him among that small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. S'ee 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). With respect to his authorship of scholarly articles. the Petitioner has not provided 
sufficient documentation to establish that his publication record, which includes 11 coauthored 
papers in professional journals and a similar number of papers presented at conferences. is consistent 
with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field. Further. the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated, through his citation evidence or expert testimonials. that his work has been 
considered of major significance and garnered acclaim in the field. Lastly. he has not shown that his 
role as a research associate at is indicative of national or international acclaim at the very top 
of the remote sensing 'tield. 
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, we find the record insufficient to demonstrate that he has sustained national or international 
acclaim and is among the small percentage at the top of his field. See section 203(b )( 1 )(A)( i) of the 
Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
7 In addition, as the Petitioner has not established his extraordinary ability under section 203(b )(I )(A)(i) of the Act, we 
need not determine whether he is coming to ''continue work in the area of extraordinary ability" under section 
203(b )(I )(A)(ii). 
Matter of K-S-
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not established eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of K-S-, 10# 581171 (AAO Oct. 12, 20 17)