dismissed EB-1A Case: Research Scientist

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
·Services 
MATTER OF N-S-S-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 19, 2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a research scientist, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in 
the sciences. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(1)(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 although the Petitioner satisfied three of the regulatory criteria, as required, 
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 additional documentation and a brief, 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)(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 Unite~ 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 of N-S-S-
The term "extra ordinary ability " refers only to those individuals in " that small percentage who have 
risen to th e 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 two option s for satisfy ing this classifica tion's initia l evidence 
requir ement s. First, a petitioner can demon strate a one-time achieve ment (that is, a major, 
internation ally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submi t this evide nce, then he or she 
must provide documentation that meets at least three of the ten catego ries listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x) (including items such as awa rds, published material in certain media, and 
scholarly articles) . 
Where a petitioner meets these initial ev idence requirements, ·we then cons ider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whe ther the record shows sus tained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrate s that the individu al is a mong the s mall percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kaza rian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) 
(discussing a two-part review where the docum entation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the 
required numb er of criteri a, 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). Thi s two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be 
determined not by the qua ntity of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we 
examin e "eac h piece of evidence for relevanc e, probative value, and cred ibilit y, both individuall y 
and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be prove n is 
probabl y true ." Matter ofChawatlz e, 25 I&N Dec·. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
. The Petition er is a resear ch scientist who is working at based in 
As the Petitioner has not established that he has rece ived a maJOr, 
internation ally recognized award, he must satisfy at leas t three of the alterna te regulatory criteria at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
A Evidenti ary Criteri a 
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 record reflect s that the Petition er reviewed manu scripts for the 
and the In 
addition, the Petitioner autho red articles in publi cations , such as · and tht 
Accordingly, we agree ·with the Director that the 
Petition er met the judging and scholarly articl es criteria. Howeve r, we do not concur wit h the 
Director 's detennination that the Petitioner met the original contributi ons criterion disc ussed below. 
2 
.
Matter of N-S-S-
In order to satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner must establish not only that 
he has made original contributions but that they have been of major significance in the field. 
1 
For 
instance, a petitioner may show that his contr'ibu tions have been widely implemented throughout the 
field, have remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a leve l of major 
significance in his overall field. The record reflects that the Petitioner claimed eligibility for this 
criterion based on media reports of his research, his publications and presenta tions, and 
recommendation letters. 
As it relat es to media reports, the Petitioner provided screenshots of press releases and news reports 
from 2014 reflecting that " [r]esearchers have identified- a compound , 
that may treat symptoms of depres sion ." The sc~eenshots are based on the Peti tioner's co-authorship 
of an article published in The majority of the screenshots, while posted on vario us 
websites, such as . and ·_ · , include iden tical or nea rly identical 
articles. The Petitioner; however, did not demonstr ate that the posting of the press releases and news 
articles on the websites is consistent with the field recognizing his research as having had major 
significance . For example , the Petitioner did not show that the websites garner significant 
recognition from the field. Moreover, the screenshots focus on the prospective potential impact of 
the petitioner's research, rather than how his work already qualifies as a contribution of major 
significance in the field. For instance, the screenshots state that "[it] may treat symptoms of 
depression," " may also serve as a future therapeutic approach," "there may be a new 
compound to treat depression, " unique properties increase the pos sibility of the 
development of a self-administered, daily treatment ," and "we hope that the result s of this s tudy will 
enable fu ture investigations into this potentially therapeutic and important compound ." 
The Petitioner also indicated that he authored scholarly article s, considered under the scholarly 
articles criterion, and that he presented his original research at num erous international symposiums. 
Participation in a conferenc e demonstrates that his findings were shared with others and may be 
acknowledged as original based on their selection for presentation. However, the Petitioner did not 
establish that the selection of his papers for presentation at conferences and reque sts for him to 
speak , in-and-of-themselves show the major significance of his contributions. Public ations 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 t~ USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009), qff'd in part, 
596 F.3d 1115. Although the Petitioner presented evidence at the initial filing that his top two 
articles were cited 36 and 31 times, respectively , he did not show that such citations reflect that his 
work has significantly impacted or influenced the field. 2 Further, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that his other published articles _ and presentations rise to a level consistent with 
original contributions of major significance in th~ field. 
1 The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires "[e]vidence of the alien 's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, 
athletic, or business -related contribution s of major significance in the field ." 
2 While the Petitioner provides an updated citation list on appea l reflecting that his top two articles have been cited 81 
and 52 times , respect ively, he did not establish that the increased citations show that his articles or finding s have been of 
major significanc e in the field. 
3 
.
.
Matter of N-S-S-
In addition, the Petitioner provid ed recommendation letters that discussed the Petiti oner's research 
without demonstrating the imp act or influence of his work in the field. Simil ar to the websites 
mentioned above, the letter s recounted the Petitioner's finding s, indi cated their publica tions in 
journals , and spec ulated on the potential imp act without showing how his researc h i s already 
considered to be of major significance in the field. For example, . assoc iate 
director for drug safety with discussed the Petitioner's 
research regarding and claimed that "[t]he se contributions of [the Petitioner] will play a very 
important role in establishing therapeutic treatments for psychi atric disorder/ ' Fur thermo re, 
, director of the department of drug science s at 
indicated the Petitioner's work with multi-drug resistance in cancer treatment and opin ed that his 
method " is a promising tool to achieve an important goal in our laboratory. " Moreover, 
associate profe sso r at 1 menti oned the Petitioner' s research in· 
identifying modulators for and asserted that it is "a potential therapeutic target for [a] 
number of metabolic disorder s." 
The letter s considered above primaril y contain . attestations of the Peti tioner 's status in the fiel d 
without providing specific examples of how his· contribution s rise to a level consist ent with major 
significance. Letters that repe at the regulatory language but do not ex plain how an indiv idua l's 
contributions have already influenced th~ field are insufficient to establish original contributions of 
major significance in the field. See Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1122 (finding USCIS' conclu sion that 
"letters from physics profes sors attesting to [the petitioner' s] contr ibutions in the field" were 
insuffici ent was "consistent with the relevant regul ato ry langu age"). Moreover, USCIS need not 
accept primarily conclusory statements. 1756, Inc. v. The U.S. Att'y Gen., 745 F. S upp. 9, 15 (D.C. 
Dist. 1990). Again, the documentation speculat es on the possibilit y of impactin g or influencing the 
tield without demonstrating that the Petitioner' s research is already a con tributi on of major 
significan ce to the overall field.4 Because the Petitioner did not estab lish that he has mad e original 
contribution s of major significance in the field consistent with the regu latio n at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v), we withdr aw the decision of the Director for this crit erion. 
B. 0-1 Nonimmigrant Statu s 
We note that the record reflects that the Petitioner received 0-1 status, a classificati on rese rved for 
non immigrants of extraordin ary ability. Although USCIS has appro ved at least one 0-1 
nonimmigr ant visa petition filed on behalf of the Petitioner , the prior approval does not preclude 
USCIS from denying an immigrant visa petition which is adjudica .ted based on a different standard­
statute , regulations , and case Jaw. Many Form 1-]40 immigrant petitions are deni ed after USCIS 
; 
3 Although we discuss a sampling o.f letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 
See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submilled with Certain Form 1-140 
Petitions; Revisions to the Adjudicator ·s Field Manual (AFM) Chapter ~2.2, AFM UpdMe ADJI-14 8-9 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
hitp://www.usc is.gov/ laws/policy -memora nda; see also Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 (uphold ing ·a finding that a 
ballroom dancer had not met this criterion because she did not corroborate her impact in the field as a whole). 
Matter of N-S-S-
approves prior nonimmigrant petitiOns. See, e.g., Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 
(D.D.C. 2003); IKEA US v. US Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Bros. Co., 
Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
Furthermore, our authority over the USCIS service centers, the office adjudicating the nonimmigrant 
visa petition, is comparable to the relationship between a court of appeals and a district court. Even 
if a service center director has approved a nonimmigrant petition on behalf of an individual, we are 
not bound to follow that finding in the adjudication of another immigration petition. Louisiana 
Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, No. 98-2855, 2000 WL 282785, at *2 (E. D. La. 2000). 
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 
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). 
Here, the Petitioner has not shown that the significance of his research 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)(1)(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)(1)(A) of the 
Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that he qualifies for classification as an 
individual of extraordinary ability. · 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of N-S-S-, ID# 1409432 (AAO June 19, 2018) 
5