dismissed EB-1A Case: Research Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 7303422 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB. 11, 2020 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a seed capital and entrepreneurial business, seeks classification as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Beneficiary had 
satisfied only two of the initial evidentiary criteria, of which she must meet at least three. In addition, 
the Director found that the Petitioner did not establish the Beneficiary's intent to continue to work in 
her area of expertise. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l) 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 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field through 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 sufficient qualifying 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. 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. 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 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 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner has employed the Beneficiary as an associate director of the I I I since October 2016. .___ _____ ___. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that the Beneficiary 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). The Director found that the Beneficiary met two of the evidentiary 
criteria relating to judging at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and scholarly articles at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). The record reflects that the Beneficiary reviewed papers relating to a research topic 
for a journal and authored scholarly articles in professional publications. As such, we concur with the 
Director's decision regarding the judging and scholarly articles criteria. 
In addition, we find that the Beneficiary's position with the Petitioner, which has a distinguished 
reputation, fulfills the leading or critical role criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). Because the 
Petitioner has shown that the Beneficiary satisfies three criteria, we will evaluate the totality of the 
evidence in the context of the final merits determination below. 1 
1 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 ADJJ-14 13 (Dec. 22, 2010). 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html (providing that objectively meeting the regulatory 
criteria in part one alone does not establish that an individual meets the requirements for classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability under section 203(6 )(I )(A) of the Act). 
2 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the Petitioner submitted the requisite initial evidence, we will evaluate whether it has demonstrated, 
by a preponderance of the evidence, the Beneficiary's sustained national or international acclaim, 2 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. In a final merits determination, 
we analyze a beneficiary's accomplishments and weigh the totality of the evidence to determine if her 
successes are sufficient to demonstrate that she has extraordinary ability in the field of endeavor. See 
section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-
20. 3 In this matter, we determine that the Petitioner has not shown the Beneficiary's eligibility. 
The Petitioner argues that the Beneficiary's "work in the field ofl I research was not as a 
researcher." Specifically, the Petitioner contends that "the Beneficiary's extraordinary ability was in 
her success in identifying, analyzing and advising other researchers on developing I I 
technologies and bringing them to market." The record reflects that the Beneficiary received her 
bachelor of science in zoology from I I in India (2002), her master of science 
in molecular genetics from the University ofl , lin the United Kingdom (2004), and her 
doctor of philosophy in genetics froml • • c=:52010). According to the 
Beneficiary's curriculum vitae, she held various student positions at D and D such as 
research intern, research assistant, graduate fellow, and graduate assistant from 2001 to 2010. Further, 
at the I !Institute for~ Development, she served as a development coordinator, postdoctoral 
scientist, and scientist from 2010 to 2016.4 Currently, the Beneficiary works for the Petitioner as an 
associate director for thel I 
As indicated above, the Beneficiary began her academic and professional career as a scientist and 
researcher and then transitioned to managing research in a management role. While the Petitioner 
demonstrated the transitional relationship between conducting research and then managing research, 
the Beneficiary satisfied three criteria based on a combination of these fields. Accordingly, we will 
evaluate the totality of the evidence to determine whether the Beneficiary received recent national or 
international acclaim in the field of scientific research and sustained that acclaim in research 
management. 5 As mentioned above, the Beneficiary judged others within her field, authored scholarly 
2 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 14 (stating that such acclaim must be maintained and 
providing Black's Law Dictionmy 's definition of "sustain" as to support or maintain, especially over a long period of time, 
and to persist in making an effort over a long period of time). 
3 Id. at 4 (instructing that USCTS officers should then evaluate the evidence together when considering the petition in its 
entirety to determine if the petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence the required high level of expertise 
of the immigrant classification). 
4 The Beneficiary also volunteered in development and marketing at the I I Institute from 2016 to 2018. 
5 The AFM provides: 
In general, if a beneficiary has clearly achieved recent national or international acclaim as an athlete and 
has sustained that acclaim in the field of coaching/managing at a national level, adjudicators can consider 
the totality of the evidence as establishing an overall pattern of sustained acclaim and extraordinary 
ability such that we can conclude that coaching is within the beneficiary's area of expertise. 
3 
articles, and performed in a leading role. The record, however, does not demonstrate that her 
achievements are reflective of a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. 
H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). 
Relating to the Beneficiary's service as a judge of the work of others as a researcher, an evaluation of 
the significance of her experience is appropriate to determine if such evidence indicates the required 
extraordinary ability for this highly restrictive classification. See Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1121-22. 6 
The Petitioner provided a letter from ~---------~I lfor 
Frontiers, who stated that the Beneficiary "had served as a Guest Associate Editor forl I 
I l .. for the scientific journal Frontiers in Genetics from February 2017 until April 2018." 7 
However, the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary's editing for al I places her 
among the small percentage at the very top of her field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The Petitioner 
did not show, for example, how the Beneficiary's limited editing experience compares to others at the 
very top of the field. In addition, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that she received significant 
attention from the field based on her editing of the research topic. 
As it pertains to the Beneficiary's experience as a judge of the work of others as an associate director, 
the record reflects that the Petitioner submitted several recommendation letters that indicated that 
judging the work of others is inherent to the Beneficiary's occupation as an associate director. For 
instance,! !claimed that the Beneficiary "serves as an individual judge of her peers 
in thel !field every day" and "[b]eing a judge is an integral part of her 
~he evaluates and identifies the most promising~---------~·" Moreover, D 
L__J asserted that the Beneficiary "is obviously a good judgel of her piers in the field as the 
Commission has approved over $145million [sic] dollars in fonding projects, which have all 
had successful outcomes." Further,I I opined that the Beneficiary 'judges the work of 
other scientists on a daily basis as that is the crux of her position, at stake is not a publication, but 
fonding vital to a project." In addition, I I stated that the Beneficiary "judges the 
research to determine whether it hasl !viability and advises whether the State of 
I ~ should fond them." Also, I !indicated that the Beneficiary "provides unique 
expertise and judgment that helps move technologies forward." Although the letters reflect that 
judging work is a characteristic, as well as a requirement, of her position, the letters do not contain 
specific, detailed information regarding the significance of her judging experience. Instead, the 
authors make broad statements, such as "have all had successful outcomes," without showing how the 
Beneficiary garnered national or international acclaim. See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. 
Here, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary's approximate one year editing 
experience and over two years job-related reviewing duties contribute to a finding that she has a 
AFM ch. 22.22(i)(l )(C) ( emphasis in original). 
6 See also USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 13 (stating that an individual's participation should be 
evaluated to determine whether it was indicative of being one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of 
the field of endeavor and enjoying sustained national or international acclaim). 
7 In response to the Director's request for evidence, the Petitioner also submitted two requests for the Beneficiary to review 
applications and judge a scientific award. However, the Petitioner must establish that all eligibility requirements for the 
immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time of the filing and continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 
103.2(b)(l). Here, the judging requests occurred after the filing of the petition. Moreover, the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate that the Beneficiary actually participated in the judging process. 
4 
"career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress or indicative of the required 
sustained national or international acclaim. See H.R. Rep. No. at 59 and section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Act. The Petitioner did not establish, for instance, that the Beneficiary garnered wide attention from 
the field based on her work as a guest associate editor or as a reviewer of technologies or projects. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not show that the Beneficiary received acclaim as a researcher and 
maintained that recognition as an associate director. 
Moreover, serving as a guest associate editor or performing the job duty of reviewing projects does 
not automatically demonstrate that an individual has extraordinary ability and sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top of her field. Without evidence that sets the Beneficiary apart from 
others in her field, such as evidence that she has a consistent history of completing a substantial number 
of review requests relative to others, served in editorial positions for distinguished journals or 
publications, chaired technical committees for reputable conferences, or reviewed acclaimed projects, 
the Petitioner has not shown that the Beneficiary's judging experience places her among "that small 
percentage who [has] risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
Likewise, the publication of her research does not automatically place one at the top of the field. 8 As 
a researcher, the Petitioner provided evidence showing that the Beneficiary authored eight articles 
from 2009 to 2015. However, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that this publication record is 
consistent with having a "career of acclaimed work." See H.R. Rep. No. at 59. Moreover, the 
Petitioner did not establish that her authorships reflect being among the small percentage at the very 
top of her field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The Petitioner, for instance, did not show the significance 
of her authorship of eight articles in a six year period or how her publications compare to others with 
similar years of experience who are viewed to be at the very top of the field. 
Moreover, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary authored any materials in journals 
or other professional publications as a research manager or associate director. The commentary for 
the proposed regulations implementing section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act provides that the "intent of 
Congress that a very high standard be set for aliens of extraordinary ability is reflected in this 
regulation by requiring the petitioner to present more extensive documentation than that required" for 
lesser classifications. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30704 (July 5, 1991). 9 Here, the Beneficiary's absence of 
written work in the past four years does not reflect this very high standard, nor does it support a finding 
that the Beneficiary has sustained national or international acclaim. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the 
Act. Moreover, the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary garnered acclaim as a researcher 
and continued that recognition as an associate director. 
As authoring scholarly articles is often inherent to the work of scientists and researchers, the citation 
history or other evidence of the influence of her articles can be an indicator to determine the impact 
and recognition that her work has had on the field and whether such influence has been sustained. For 
example, numerous independent citations for an article authored by the Beneficiary may provide solid 
evidence that her work has been recognized and that other researchers and scientists have been 
8 See also USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 13 (providing that publications should be evaluated to 
determine whether they were indicative of being one of that small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor and enjoying sustained national or international acclaim). 
9 See also USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 2. 
5 
influenced by her work. Such an analysis at the final merits determination stage is appropriate 
pursuant to Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1122. Here, the record indicates that the Petitioner provided 
evidence reflecting that the Beneficiary's articles cumulatively garnered a few dozen citations, 
including four articles that did not receive any citations. 10 
While the Beneficiary's citations, both individually and collectively, show that the field has noticed 
some of her work, the Petitioner has not established that such citations are sufficient to demonstrate a 
level of interest in the field commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim. See section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. Moreover, the Petitioner has not shown that the citations to the Beneficiary's 
research represent attention at a level consistent with being among small percentage at the very top of 
her field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 11 
As it pertains to her position as an associate director, the Petitioner demonstrated that the role itself is 
leading. However, the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary's role at a single organization 
represents sustained national or international acclaim or a "career of acclaimed work in the field." See 
section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and H.R. Rep. No. at 59. Moreover, while the Petitioner submitted 
reference letters that discussed the Beneficiary's responsibilities and accomplishments, they did not 
show that her associate director role resulted in widespread acclaim from her field, that she drew 
significant attention from the greater field, or that overall field considers her to be at the very top of 
the field of endeavor. Further, her reference letters made broad assertions without providing specific, 
detailed information establishing that the Beneficiary received sustained national or international 
acclaim based on her role as an associate director. 
For instance].__ ____ ____.[ executive director for the Petitioner, listed the Beneficiary's job duties, 
praised her performance, and indicated two international conferences "that specifically invited her to 
present." However,I I did not show how being invited to two conferences demonstrates the 
Beneficiary's extensive recognition by the field. In fact, I I CEO for the Petitioner, 
indicated that "[i]t is true that [the Beneficiary's] name will not be associated with the research or any 
company that may be formed, this is the nature of her job." Although the Beneficiary performed in 
the expected role of an associate director as outlined in the recommendation letters, the Petitioner did 
not show that she garnered sustained national or international acclaim. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) of 
the Act. 
In addition, a~ the Petitioner argues for the Beneficiary's role at the I I Institute for D 
DevelopmentL__J, the Petitioner provided recommendation letters that discussed the Beneficiary's 
position as a researcher, which neither indicated a leading or critical role, nor evidenced sustained 
national or international acclaim. For exampleJ I director and CEO ofi I identified 
the Beneficiary's involvement in various research and projects but did not elaborate on any attention 
she received from the field or how her role placed her among the small percentage at the very top of 
the field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). Again, the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary 
10 See screenshots from scholar.google.com. 
11 The Petitioner also submitted evidence of the Beneficiary's poster presentations at two conferences in 2015 and 2016, 
including three requests to speak at conferences after the filing of her petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.1 (b )(1 ). However, the 
Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary's presentations or participation resulted in sustained national or 
international acclaim or demonstrates evidence of being among the small percentage at the very top of the field. See 
section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
6 
garnered national or international acclaim as a researcher and sustained that recognition as an associate 
director. 
Beyond the three criteria that the Beneficiary satisfied, we consider additional documentation in the 
record in order to determine whether the totality of the evidence demonstrates eligibility. Here, for 
the reasons discussed below, we find that the evidence neither fulfills the requirements of any further 
evidentiary criteria, nor contributes to an overall finding that the Beneficiary has sustained national or 
international acclaim and is among the small percentage of the top of her field. 
As indicated above, the Petitioner provided recommended letters that summarized the Beneficiary's 
work and contributions as a researcher and associate director. The letters, however, do not contain 
sufficient information and explanation to show that the Beneficiary is viewed by the overall field, 
rather than by a solicited few, as being 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 did not establish that the Beneficiary 
has made impactful or influential contributions in the greater field reflecting a "career of acclaimed 
work in the field," garnering the required sustained national or international acclaim. See H.R. Rep. 
No. at 59 and section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. 
In addition, the Petitioner provided screenshots from four websites reporting on the findings from one 
of the Beneficiary's articles in 2012. The material, however, speculates on the possible impact the 
research may have on the field. For example, the coverage indicates "this work could help lead to 
noveU !therapies ... , which may stem from roblems with develo ment," "I I from corpses 
might play a key role in developing fuc'r'-'-....._ __ __...LI.J.I..J...<lJUJJ......,._....<J..LJI.LL.-~----1 ••• , could be collected 
from cadavers and reprorammed into.__ __________ __., which could then develop into 
I' While the Beneficiary's research showed promise in 2012, the Petitioner 
did not establish how her work already qualified as a contribution of major significance in the field, 
rather than prospective, potential impacts. 
Moreover, the reporting did not mention the Beneficiary- Instrd, the screenshots refer and quoteD 
I I neurologist and chief operating officer a Although the Beneficiary contributed 
to the research and article, the media reports do not single her out or acknowledge her for her findings. 
Here, the Petitioner did not establish that this media coverage reflects the Beneficiary's status as an 
individual who has garnered "sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements 
have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation." See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Act and 56 Fed. Reg. at 30704. 
The record as a whole, including the evidence discussed above, does not establish the Beneficiary's 
eligibility for the benefit sought. Here, the Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification for 
the Beneficiary, intended for individuals already at the top of their respective fields, rather than those 
progressing toward the top. Even major league level athletes do not automatically meet the statutory 
standards for classification as an individual of "extraordinary ability." Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 
953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). While the Petitioner need not establish that there is no one more 
accomplished to qualify for the classification sought, we find the record insufficient to demonstrate 
that the Beneficiary has sustained national or international acclaim and is among the small percentage 
at the top of her field. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
7 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated the Beneficiary's eligibility as 
an individual of extraordinary ability. 12 The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, 
with each considered as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
12 As the Petitioner has not demonstrated the Beneficiary's extraordinary ability under section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act 
we need not consider whether she intends to continue working in her area of extraordinary ability under section 
203(b )(1 )(A)(ii). See INS v. Bagamasbad. 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not 
generally required to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach). 
8