dismissed EB-1A Case: Sciences

(b)(6)
DATE: JUM 0 8 2015 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
FILE#: 
PETITION RECEIPT#: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service: 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave .. N.W., MS 2090 
Washington. DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(l )(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § l l53(b)(I)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
Enclosed is the non-precedent decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) for your case. 
If you believe we inconectly decided your case, you may file a motion requesting us to reconsider our decision 
and/or reopen the proceeding. The requirements for motions are located at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Motions must be 
filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form 1-2908) within 33 days of the date of this decision. The Form 1-
2908 web page (www.uscis.gov/i-290b) contains the latest information on fee, filing location, and other 
requirements. Please do not mail any motions directly to the AAO. 
Thank you, 
tFiZI�-
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
REV 3/2015 www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal 
will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in the sciences, pursuant to 
section 203(b )(l )(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1 153(b)(l)(A), which 
makes visas available to aliens 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 determined that the petitioner had not satisfied the initial 
evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R § 204. 5(h)(3), which requires documentation of a one-time 
achievement or evidence that meets at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a brief with additional documentary evidence. For the reasons 
discussed below, we agree that the petitioner has not established his eligibility for the exclusive 
classification sought. Specifically, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence of a one­
time achievement pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5 (h)(3), or evidence that satisfies at least three of the 
ten regulatory criteria set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204. 5(h)(3)(i)-(x). As such, the 
petitioner has not demonstrated that he is one of the small percentage who are at the very top in the 
field of endeavor, and that he has sustained national or international acclaim. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204. 5(h)(2), (3). Accordingly, we will dismiss the petitioner's appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants who 
are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph 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. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service 
(INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 101 51 Cong., 2d Sess. 59 
(1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). 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. !d.; 
8 C.F.R. § 204. 5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitiOner can 
demonstrate the petitioner's sustained acclaim and the recognition of the petitioner's achievements in 
the field through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized 
award). If the petitioner does not submit this evidence, then a petitioner must submit sufficient 
qualifying evidence that meets at least three of the ten categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204. 5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
The submission of evidence relating to at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, 
establish eligibility for this classification. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 111 5 (9th Cir. 201 0) 
(discussing a two-part review where the evidence is first counted and then, if satisfying the required 
number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination). See also Rijal v. USCIS, 
772 F.Supp.2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011) (affirming USCIS' proper application of Kazarian), aff'd, 683 
F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F.Supp.3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013) (finding that 
USCIS appropriately applied the two-step review); Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 
(AAO 20 I 0) (holding that the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by 
its quality" and that users examines "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"). 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria1 
Documentation of the alien 's recei pt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in thefield of endeavor. 
This criterion contains several evidentiary elements the petitioner must satisfy. According to the plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F. R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), the evidence must establish that the petitioner is 
the recipient of the prizes or the awards. The clear regulatory language requires that the prizes or the 
awards are nationally or internationally recognized. The plain language of the regulation also requires 
the petitioner to submit evidence that each prize or award is one for excellence in the field of endeavor 
rather than simply for participating in or contributing to an event or to a group. The petitioner must 
satisfy all of these elements to meet the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
1 We have reviewed all of the evidence the petitioner has submitted and will address those criteria the petitioner 
claims to meet or for which the petitioner has submitted relevant and probative evidence. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDEN TD EC�ION 
Page 4 
The petitioner initially asserted that three awards qualify him under this criterion. The director 
determined that the petitioner did not meet the requirements of this criterion. Specifically, the director 
concluded that the petitioner had not submitted evidence demonstrating the selection criteria for each 
award, nor did the petitioner submit evidence demonstrating who performed the selection of the award 
recipients. 
The petitioner submitted evidence that the awarded him the New 
Investigator Travel Award to attend the 
This was a $500 award to compensate the award recipients' travel expenses. In response to 
the director's RFE, the petitioner submitted evidence that 21 new investigators won this travel award in 
2011. On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the Final Program, which he submitted in response to 
the director's RFE, demonstrates that the abstracts were graded by 17 highly trained individuals. While 
the evidence does not demonstrate that all 17 judges reviewed and graded each abstract, it demonstrates 
that at least one qualified expert graded his abstract. 
Even if all 17 judges graded his abstract, the number of judges and their qualifications alone are not 
sufficient to establish this travel award, awarded to 21 new investigators in 2011, is nationally or 
internationally recognized in the field. We will not presume that all awards from a panel of qualified 
individuals are nationally or internationally recognized. The petitioner should also submit probative 
evidence demonstrating that the awards are recognized in the field beyond the issuing entity. On 
appeal, the petitioner also provides a letter from the dated June 11, 2014. Within this letter, 
the Program Manager indicates that the organization issues this 
award to "top abstract scores." Ms. does not provide any details relating to the methodology or 
criteria the utilizes to score abstracts or the pool of candidates for the travel award specifically. 
Even if the utilizes the same grading criteria as it does to select which abstracts continue to the 
subsequent conference, this evidence is not sufficient to establish the petitioner's travel award that 
provided financial assistance in traveling to the conference is nationally or internationally recognized. 
The petitioner did not submit evidence that the general media or professional media in his field covered 
the award selections. 
The petitioner also references an AAO administrative decision that he asserts addresses a situation 
similar to the scenario in his case. While 8 C.F. R. § 103. 3(c) provides that AAO precedent decisions 
are binding on all USCIS employees in the administration of the Act, unpublished decisions are not 
similarly binding. Regardless, the nonbinding case the petitioner references ipvolves artistic awards 
that are used in the marketing of motion pictures both domestically and internationally. Additionally, 
the awards honor artists whose work directly influences a film's Oscar consideration and box office 
success. Notably, the covers the awards. Ultimately, this office concluded that the 
awards in the nonbinding decision were nationally recognized honors based on the recognition in the 
field of the award's impact. The petitioner has not demonstrated any such impact based on his abstract. 
The petitioner also cites to USCIS policy which lists the criteria used to grant an award as possible 
evidence to demonstrate an award is issue for excellence in the field. The petitioner did not submit the 
criteria the utilizes to issue travel awards. Instead, Ms. discusses the criteria utilized in the 
(b)(6)
Page 5 
selection process for the abstracts that are selected for the Best of 
Session discussed below. 
NON-PRECEDENT DEC�ION 
Specialty Conferences Poster 
The petitioner's abstract referenced above competed against approximately 4,000 other abstracts in the 
I finishing among the top 400, or top ten percent. As a result, the 
petitioner was asked to present at another conference, the Best of Specialty Conferences 
Poster Session. According to an email the petitioner submits on appeal, this second conference is the 
"premier cardiovascular conference in the world." Regardless, the prestige of the conference does not 
establish that selection as of one of 400 posters for presentation at the conference is a nationally or 
internationally recognized award for excellence. The petitioner has not demonstrated that he received 
an award or prize at the second conference. 
Even if we were persuaded to characterize the selection as one of 400 posters for presentation at a 
conference as a prize or an award, the record lacks evidence that the petitioner's presentation at the Best 
of Specialty Conferences Poster Session constitutes a prize or an award that is nationally or 
internationally recognized. On appeal, the petitioner asserts that this award is significant because the 
is the issuing entity and because the the petitioner's prior employer, 
archived its website posting of his selection to present his abstract at the subsequent conference. That 
the petitioner's own employer posted his selection on their website, which retains the posting among the 
archived news items, is not evidence of a wider recognition of the award in the field beyond the 
petitioner's employer. National and international recognition results, not from the entity that issued the 
prize or the award, but through the awareness of the accolade in the eyes of the field nationally or 
internationally. This recognition can occur through specific means; for example, through media 
coverage. A national or international level competition may issue lesser awards that merely receive 
local or regional recognition, which do not meet the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
Unsupported conclusory letters from those in the petitioner's field and a posting on the website of the 
recipient's employer, are not sufficient evidence that a particular prize or award is nationally or 
internationally recognized. 
Consequently, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language requirements of 
this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field fo r which class(fication is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national 
or international experts in their disciplines orfields. 
The director discussed the evidence submitted for this criterion and found that the petitioner did not 
establish his eligibility. On appeal, the petitioner does not contest the director's findings for this 
criterion or offer additional discussion. Therefore, the petitioner has abandoned his eligibility claims 
under this criterion. Sepulveda v. US Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2005); Hristov v. 
Roark, No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 471188 5 at * 1, 9 (E. D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (the court found 
the plaintiffs claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO). Accordingly, 
the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence under this criterion. 
----------------- ------ -··· ··- - - - ---------- ----------
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECiSION 
Page 6 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which class{fication is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
The director discussed the evidence submitted for this criterion and found that the petitioner did not 
establish his eligibility. On appeal, the petitioner does not contest the director's findings for this 
criterion or offer additional discussion. Therefore, the petitioner has abandoned his eligibility claims 
under this criterion. Sepulveda 401 F.3d at 1228 n.2; Hristov, 20 11 WL 471 1885, at *9. Accordingly, 
the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence under this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge �l the work �l 
others in the same or an allied field �l spec{fication for which class{fication is sought. 
The director determined the petitioner met the requirements of this criterion. The petitioner has 
submitted sufficient evidence, including evidence he has reviewed manuscripts in the 
, to establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence �f the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major sign(ficance in the .field. 
The plain language of this regulatory criterion contains multiple evidentiary elements that the petitioner 
must satisfy. The first is evidence of the petitioner's contributions in his field. These contributions 
must have already been realized rather than being potential, future contributions. The petitioner must 
also demonstrate that his contributions are original. The evidence must establish that the contributions 
are scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related in nature. The final requirement is that the 
contributions rise to the level of major significance in the field as a whole, rather than to a project or to 
an organization. The phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, it has some 
meaning. Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 51 F. 3d 28, 31 (3rd Cir. 1995) quoted in 
APWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 626 (2nd Cir. Sep 15, 2003). Contributions of major significance 
connotes that the petitioner's work has significantly impacted the field. See 8 C.F. R. § 204. 5(h)(3)(v); 
see also Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 135- 136. The petitioner must submit evidence satisfying all of 
these elements to meet the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
After thoroughly discussing the petitioner's eligibility claims, the director determined that the petitioner 
did not meet the requirements of this criterion. The director discussed four letters, and summarized the 
remaining letters. It is not enoneous that a USCIS decision does not cite from each and every letter 
in support of a petition. Noroozi v. Napolitano, 905 F.Supp.2d 535, 545 (S. D.N. Y. 20 12) (citing 
Chen v. US Dep't of Justice, 471 F.3d 31 5, 338 n. 17 (2d Cir.2006)). The director's decision 
indicated that letters alone are not sufficient probative evidence to satisfy this criterion, and that the 
record lacked evidence to conoborate the assertions within the expert letters. On appeal, the petitioner 
expresses disagreement with the director's methodology and conclusions. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
The petitioner's appellate brief first points to the letter from Dr. Professor with the 
Department of Physics at the and provides quotes from the letter. Dr. 
confirms that the petitioner began at the university as a postdoctoral fellow and then was employed as a 
research scientist. Dr. indicates the petitioner's research in heart and blood disorders resulted in 
the petitioner publishing articles in respected research joumals. Dr. does not, however, describe 
how the petitioner's published works resulted in significant impacts within the field. Dr. also 
describes how the petitioner's abstract finished in the top ten percent of abstracts at the in 2010, 
but offered no indication of how this work significantly impacted the field upon dissemination. 
Dr. also indicates the petitioner's pioneering work relating to systems has been presented 
at several national and intemational conferences, but offers no examples of the impact of such 
presentations. While Dr. states the petitioner's work with novel nanomaterials is significant for 
the development of markers, he closes this same paragraph indicating this work will be highly 
beneficial for improved national security and for patients treated with medical laser technology. 
According to this last statement, the petitioner's work bears great importance in the petitioner's field as 
well as in the field of chemical detection, but has not yet made such a significant impact within the 
petitioner's field as required by the regulation. That the petitioner will provide a prospective benefit to 
the United States as a permanent resident is a statutory requirement. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(iii) of the 
Act. This criterion, however, requires the petitioner to demonstrate realized contributions. 
Dr. does not, however, identifY how the petitioner has already made a significant impact in his 
field, which is required by this regulatory criterion. A petitioner must establish the elements for the 
approval of the petition at the time of filing. 8 C.F. R. § 103.2( b)(l), (1 2). A petition may not be 
approved if the beneficiary was not qualified at the priority date, but expects to become eligible at a 
subsequent time. See Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 197 1). 
The petitioner also provides a brief quote from Professor of Medicine and Consultant 
Physician at the who affirms a collaboration with the petitioner. The 
provided quote also describes a potential future benefit from the petitioner's work. Dr. states: 
"Our proposed studies will provide the first preclinical system for monitoring the development and 
progression of multiple diabetic complications, especially neuropathy and will also greatly facilitate the 
assessment of novel therapies via [High Throughput Screening]." Benefits that may come to fruition at 
some future time are not qualifYing elements under this criterion as the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204. 5(h)(3)(v) does not allow prospective contributions of major significance in the field. !d. 
The petitioner also provides a quote from Professor from the 
that describes how the petitioner played a vital role in building a low cost zebrafish facility at the 
university. Dr. also indicates the petitioner coauthored and published a paper describing 
these results and that other laboratories have built facilities based on the petitioner's system. While this 
constitutes an original contribution, the record lacks evidence demonstrating that this contribution is of 
major significance in the petitioner's field. That the petitioner has helped add to the knowledge within 
the field is a notable accomplishment, but without evidence of how this knowledge has significantly 
impacted the field, it is not sufficient to meet this criterion's requirements. Additionally, the petitioner 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DEC�ION 
Page 8 
has not provided probative documentary evidence confirming Dr. _ assertion that other 
facilities utilized the petitioner's system and describing the extent of their reliance on the petitioner's 
work. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of 
meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of So.ffzci, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Assoc. 
Comm'r 1998). 
The quote the petitioner provides from Dr. Senior Scientist at 
_ 
_ _ , implies that the citation of the petitioner's work in a 2012 article 
demonstrates that the petitioner's work constitutes a contribution of major significance in the field. 
However, a review of this review article titled, ' 
-
reveals that the citation to the 
petitioner's work only appears one time in the introductory paragraph and is contained within a cite to 
multiple other sources for the proposition that a "wide variety of tools and reagents have been 
developed for in vivo labeling and imaging of blood cells and for investigating blood cell function." 
This citation is insufficient to demonstrate the petitioner's impact in the field. Further, the article is a 
review article that briefly discusses multiple recent studies rather than either a review article singling 
out the petitioner's work as influential or a research article that builds on the petitioner's work. As this 
review article summarizes the current state of research, instead of reporting a researcher's original 
findings that build on the petitioner's work, it does not demonstrate actual reliance on the petitioner's 
work. 
The petitioner also discusses the letter from Dr. . Professor of Pathology at the 
Dr. indicates that the petitioner's research 
has been influential, a major breakthrough, and has been cited extensively. Regarding the petitioner's 
work being influential, Dr. explains that the petitioner developed a novel method, using a laser 
induced thrombosis, for observing hemostasis. Dr. indicates that this "greatly simplified 
research in the area and allowed make [sic] further discoveries regarding" research. Dr. 
does not specify what further discoveries this finding enabled, beyond confirming its influence on his 
own study. While Dr. clearly found the petitioner's methods useful, his letter does not 
demonstrate the petitioner's influence beyond a single independent institution in Texas. · 
Dr. also states that the petitioner's research into led to a "huge 
breakthrough" in the field, and that this research has already been cited quite extensively but only 
provides the names of two laboratories. As discussed below the petitioner's citation record does not 
document that any one of the petitioner's articles has garnered extensive citations. Dr. closes his 
letter stating the petitioner's "research contributions are extraordinary ... He has risen to the top of his 
field in blood disorders as evidenced by his discoveries ... . " That Dr. repeats the language of 
the statute or regulations within the letter does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. Fedin Bros. 
Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 11 03, 11 08 (E. D.N. Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr 
Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S. D.N. Y.). Similarly, USCIS need not accept 
primarily conclusory assertions. 1756, Inc. v. Att'y Gen, 745 F. Supp. 9, 17 (D. D.C. 1990). 
(b)(6)
Page 9 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
, Assistant Professor at the indicates within his letter that the 
petitioner's work has contributed significantly to drug discovery techniques relating to diabetes using 
the zebrafish model. Dr. indicates the petitioner developed a key advancement in drug testing that 
is "one of the most novel research tools in the field" that allows researchers to "assess the effects of a 
huge library of FDA approved drugs from " Dr. letter lacks an 
explanation of how widespread the use of the petitioner's development has been in the field. Dr. 
also indicates that he has taken an interest in the petitioner's work and that he plans on using the 
petitioner's work in his own projects, but he provide no details on how he has already been impacted by 
the petitioner's work. 
Dr. also discusses the petitioner's work relating to how minerals interact with kidneys. Dr. 
asserts the petitioner has devised a test that exclusively detects a medical condition believed to cause an 
increase in kidney stone production. Dr. indicates that this work is important and is evidenced by 
being cited in "the prestigious ." The petitioner's article, however, 
has itself only garnered minimal citations despite being included in this text. 
The letter from Interim Dean of the Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences at the 
_ 
also discusses the petitioner's drug discovery 
techniques relating to diabetes using the zebrafish model mentioned by Dr. above. Dr. 
account of the petitioner's actions relating to drug testing against the 
matches the description within Dr. , letter. Dr. _ states that the petitioner produced more 
accurate results and discovered additional compounds from this testing. Dr. does not explain 
how this testing methodology has impacted the field at large, beyond the tests the petitioner performed. 
While Dr. indicates that the petitioner's research has significantly advanced the knowledge in the 
field of drug discovery, he has not sufficiently described such an impact in the field as a whole. 
The director's decision also discussed the letters from , Professor at the 
and Associate Professor in Medicine at the 
The director quoted from these and other letters and focused on Dr. 
: letter in which he first characterizes the petitioner's techniques as "landmark for novel 
diagnostics in cardiovascular biology," but supports that characterization by stating that the continuation 
of this work will be beneficial to the field in the future. The director concluded that Dr. 
account of the petitioner's accomplishments are not qualifying under this criterion as the petitioner must 
demonstrate he has already made significant contributions in the field as of the petition filing date. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the director found that Dr. statement that the 
petitioner's efforts will benefit the field in the future outweighed the testimony of "no fewer than ten 
other experts who demonstrated that [the petitioner's] contributions had a significant impact on his 
colleagues." However, even considering all of the expert letters, the petitioner has not demonstrated an 
impact consistent with a contribution of major significance in his field. The remaining letters repeat the 
petitioner's achievements listed above, highlight the petitioner's efforts in setting up the aquatic facility, 
or indicate the authors' support for his permanent residency in the United States. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
The petitioner also asserts that his citation record contributes to him meeting this criterion's 
requirements. Within the appeal the petitioner identifies documentation he submitted in response to the 
director's RFE as qualifYing evidence. The director's decision notes that the petitioner's combined 
published works had been cited a moderate number of times as of the petition filing date, and while this 
moderate citation record is a positive factor in the petitioner's case, it was not sufficient to demonstrate 
the petitioner's published works had impacted the field at a level commensurate with a contribution of 
major significance. In response, the petitioner's appellate brief states that due to the interdisciplinary 
nature of the petitioner's work, his "citation numbers are actually twice that of the average 
interdisciplinary researcher." (Emphasis in the original.) Specifically, counsel asserts that the 
petitioner's articles have garnered an average of 11.25 citations, more than twice the multidisciplinary 
average of 4.98. The petitioner, however, had garnered a total of 59 citations for seven articles as of the 
date he responded to the RFE, which produces an average of 8.42 when considering only those articles 
that garnered citations. Calculating his average for all of his articles, including those that have not been 
cited, reduces his average to 6.56. Accordingly, the petitioner has not demonstrated that his average 
citation rate per article is 11.25 or even that his citation rate per cited article of 8.42 is meaningful as it 
does not take into account his uncited articles. 
While the petitioner's overall average citation rate per article is slightly above average for 
multidisciplinary researchers and he has authored four articles that have garnered citations above the 
average rate, not every article cited at a level above the average rate represents work that has had an 
impact consistent with a contribution of major significance in the petitioner's field. The petitioner has 
not demonstrated the citation rate for articles that have had a demonstrable impact in the field. As such, 
the petitioner's citation record falls short of establishing that his work as a whole constitutes a 
contribution of major significance. 
It is not enough to be skillful and knowledgeable and to have others attest to those qualities. The 
petitioner must have demonstrably impacted his field in order to meet this regulatory criterion. See 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v); see also Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134. The reference letters submitted by 
the petitioner discuss his findings and his activities, but they do not provide specif!c examples of how 
the petitioner's work has significantly impacted the field at large or otherwise constitutes original 
contributions of major significance. 
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has stated that testimony should not be disregarded simply 
because it is "self-serving." See, e.g., Matter of S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 1328, 1332 (BIA 2000) (citing 
Matter of M-D-, 21 I&N Dec. 1180 (BIA 1998); Matter ofY-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998); Matter 
of Dass, 20 I&N Dec. 120 (BIA 1989); see also Matter of Acosta, 19 I&N Dec. 211, 218 (BIA 1985)). 
The Board clarified, however: "We not only encourage, but require the introduction of corroborative 
testimonial and documentary evidence, where available." Matter of S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. at 1332. If 
testimonial evidence lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for the petitioner to 
submit corroborative evidence. Matter ofY-B-, 21 I&N Dec. at 1136. 
Vague, solicited letters from local colleagues that do not specifically identifY contributions or provide 
specific examples of how those contributions influenced the field are insufficient. Kazarian v. USCJS, 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009) qff'd in part 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). In 2010, the Kazarian 
court reiterated the conclusion that "letters from physics professors attesting to [the petitioner's] 
contributions in the field" was insufficient was "consistent with the relevant regulatory language." 596 
F.3d at 1122. The opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and have been considered 
above. While such letters can provide impmtant details about the petitioner's skills, they cannot form 
the cornerstone of a successful extraordinary ability claim. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as 
advisory opinions .statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 
19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final 
determination regarding the petitioner's eligibility for the benefit sought. !d. The submission of letters 
from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the 
content of those letters as to whether they support the petitioner's eligibility. See id. at 795; see also 
Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not 
purport to be evidence as to "fact" but rather is admissible only if it will assist the trier of fact to 
understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue). USCIS may even give less weight to an 
opinion that is not corroborated, in accord with other infmmation or is in any way questionable. !d. at 
795; see also Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165 (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 
14 I&N Dec. at 190). See also Visinscaia, 4 F.Supp.3d at 134-35 (concluding that US CIS' decision to 
give limited weight to uncorroborated assertions from practitioners in the field was not arbitrary and 
capricious). While letters authored in support of the petition have probative value, they are most 
persuasive when supported by evidence that already existed independently in the public sphere. While 
the petitioner submitted letters from independent researchers and citations, the content of the letters and 
the level of citation are not indicative of the petitioner's contributions of major significance in the field. 
For all the reasons discussed above, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets this criterion's 
requirements. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the . field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The director determined the petitioner met the requirements of this criterion. The petitioner has 
submitted sufficient evidence, to include multiple articles the petitioner .authored, published in 
scholarly journals, to establish that he meets this criterion. 
B. Surrunary 
For the reasons discussed above, we agree with the Director that the petitioner has not submitted the 
requisite initial evidence, in this case, evidence that satisfies three of the ten regulatory criteria. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the petitioner has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of his or her field of endeavor. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
Had the petitioner submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary categories, in 
accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a 
"level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the 
very top of the field of endeavor," and (2) "that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. As the petitioner has not done so, the 
proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of 
presenting evidence that satisfied the initial evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F. R § 204.5(h)(3) 
and (4). Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1122. Nevertheless, although we need not provide the type of final 
merits determination referenced in Kazarian, a review of the evidence in the aggregate supports a 
finding that the petitioner has not demonstrated the level of expertise required for the classification 
sought.2 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, \Vith 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 of 
Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, the petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2 We maintain de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. United States Dep 't oj.Justice, 381 
F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). In any future proceeding, we maintain the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits 
detennination as the office that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R. § 103 .5(a)( I )(ii); see also INA 
§§ 1 03(a)(l ), 204(b ); DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); 8 C.F .R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.1(i)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter o[Aurelio, 19I&N Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987) (holding that legacy INS, now 
USC IS, is the sole authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa petitions).