dismissed EB-1A Case: Sciences

U.S. Citizenship 
and Inunigration 
Services 
MATTER OF Y-Y-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAR. 6, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a postdoctoral 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 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had satisfied only two of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, of 
which she must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional documentation and a brief asserting that she fulfills at 
least three of the ten criteria. 
Upon de nova 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 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 
.
Matter ofY-Y-
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). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, then 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). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner to submit comparable 
material if he or she is able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not 
readily apply to the individual's occupation. 
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 of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
11. ANALYSIS 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner was working as a Postdoctoral Program Fellow at the 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that she 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). In denying the petition, the Director found that the 
Petitioner met only two of the initial evidentiary criteria: judging under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) 
and scholarly articles under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). The record reflects that the Petitioner served 
as a peer reviewer of manuscripts and authored scholarly articles in professional publications. 
Accordingly, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner fulfilled the judging and scholarly 
articles criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that she meets two additional criteria, discussed below. We have 
reviewed all of the evidence in the record and conclude that it does not support a finding that she 
satisfies the requirements of at least three criteria. 
2 
.
Matter ofY-Y-
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The record includes an October 2016 letter from Director of the 
informing the Petitioner that 
she was selected for a Fellowship at the This letter further indicates that "is 
extremely selective, and this Fellowship is offered to you in recognition of your highly ranked 
academic and scientific achievement. You will work in collaboration with 
who will serve as your research advisor." In addition, the Petitioner submitted information from 
website discussing the review process and evaluation standards for applications. This 
information states that "[p]ostdoctoral applicants are evaluated on the basis of demonstrated ability 
as a student and on their potential for making contributions as an independent scientist" ( emphasis 
added). The aforementioned evidence shows that the Petitioner's Fellowship is a scientific 
training opportunity "to engage in ongoing research projects at a 
or at a -affiliated research institute" rather than a prize or award "for excellence 
in the field of endeavor." 
On appeal, the Petitioner presents a July 2018 letter from asserting that the 
Fellowship "is extremely selective and grants the fellowship only to talented scientists who have 
demonstrated excellence in their research areas." 1 further contends that this fellowship 
"is considered one of the most prestigious national awards in the scientific fields," but the record 
does not include media coverage or other supporting evidence to corroborate his claim. The 
Petitioner's evidence therefore is not sufficient to show that her Fellowship constitutes a 
nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the field. Accordingly, she 
has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
As evidence under this criterion, the Petitioner submitted her publications and presentations, citation 
evidence for her published work, summaries of her research papers available on the -~ 
Division website, and letters of recommendation 
from colleagues. The Director considered this documentation, but found that it was not sufficient to 
demonstrate that the Petitioner's work constituted original contributions of major significance in the 
field. For the reasons discussed below, we agree with that determination. 
In order to satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) , a petitioner must establish that not only 
has she made contributions that were original but that they have been of major significance in the 
field. For example, a petitioner may show that the contributions have been widely implemented 
1 The record indicates that 33 "[n]ew Fellows started between July and September 2017." 
3 
.
Matter ofY-Y-
throughout the field, have remarkably impacted the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major 
significance in the field. 
As one type of evidence of the impact of her work, the record includes a 2018 Google Scholar 
citation report indicating that her 2010 article entitled " 
" 
" 
" was "cited by 56." Her next most cited articles, 
" (2015) and 
" (2015), were cited 38 and 29 times 
respectively. Regarding the Petitioner's remaining articles published from 2010 until 2018, the 
aforementioned Google Scholar report reflects that they have been cited 25, 17, 17, 3, 2, and 2 times 
. 1 2 respective y. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director erred in comparing her citation information with 
that of 12 other researchers whose names appear in the record. She provides letters from colleagues 
asserting that the Director's analysis did not take into consideration the nature and size of her 
specialty areas or sample selection bias. We agree that comparison of the Petitioner's cumulative 
citation record to that of other scientists or researchers in the record is not appropriate in determining 
whether she has made original contributions of major significance in the field. Rather, the 
evaluation of the Petitioner's overall citation evidence relative to others in her field would be more 
relevant in a final merits determination to demonstrate her sustained national or international 
acclaim, 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. 
The Petitioner maintains that she has published research articles in top-ranked 3 and highly circulated 
international journals and that the InCites Essential Science Indicators (IESI) citation rate for six of 
her papers is high relative to others in her field. For example, she offered information from IESI 
indicating that her paper, entitled " __ 
" is in the top 1 % most cited by subject area for the year in which it was 
published, having been cited more than 30 times since 2015. In addition, three of her papers are in 
the top 10% and two are in the top 20% most cited by subject area for the respective years in which 
they were published. The comparative ranking of a paper's citation rate, however, does not 
automatically establish it as a majorly significant contribution to the field. Rather, the appropriate 
analysis is to determine whether a petitioner has shown that her individual articles, factoring in 
citations and other corroborating evidence, have been considered important at a level consistent with 
original contributions of major significance in the field. 
2 Seven of her articles listed in this report do not show any citations. 
3 That a publication bears a high ranking is reflective of its overall citation rate. Ranking alone, however, does not 
demonstrate the influence of any particular author within the publication or show that an author's research has had an impact 
within the field. 
4 
.
Matter ofY-Y-
Generally, citations can confirm that the field has taken interest in a researcher's work. The 
Petitioner submitted various examples of articles that cited to her work; however they do not reflect 
that her 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 her work, considered both individually and collectively, are 
commensurate with contributions "of major significance in the field." 
The Petitioner further indicates that she has presented her work at 15 conferences held by the 
In addition, she provided an 
email inviting her to speak on her research topic at the 
in 2018. This conference post-dates the filing of the petition and therefore does not show 
her eligibility under this criterion at the time of filing. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). Regardless, while 
participation in these scientific conferences demonstrates that the Petitioner's findings were shared 
with others and may be acknowledged as original based on their selection for presentation, she has 
not established that the selection of her papers for presentation at such conferences and the request 
for her to speak at the in-and-of-themselves show the major significance of her 
contributions. 
The Petitioner also points to documentation showing that she received two invitations to write book 
chapters relating to geospatial data and dust storms. She previously provided emails from 
and asking her to contribute a chapter to their publications. 4 
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. Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 
1036 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1122. There is no presumption that every 
published article, book chapter, or conference presentation is a contribution of major significance in 
the field; rather, a petitioner must document the actual impact of her article or presentation. Here, 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated that her published and presented work was majorly significant in 
the field. 
In addition, the record includes three articles discussing the Petitioner's research projects at 
and 5 Specifically, the Petitioner's work was 
reported in publication describing "research uses of Earth observing 
data from the === "), 
and quarterly newsletter). These three 
articles reported on the Petitioner's work, but she has not established that this level of coverage 
demonstrates that the impact of her work rises to a level of major significance in the field.6 
4 With respect to her published 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 she has already satisfied. 
5 The Petitioner received her Ph.D. in Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences from in 2017. 
6 The aforementioned articles do not demonstrate the significance of her work beyond her research institutions. For 
example, the institutions where the Petitioner performed her research are those that wrote about her 
findings. 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 AD J 1-14 8-9 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
5 
.
Matter ofY-Y-
Likewise, while the Petitioner submitted summaries of three of her research papers available on the 
Division website, she did not show 
that having her articles appear on this website constitutes a contribution of major significance to the 
overall field. 7 
As another form of evidence under this criterion, the Petitioner contends that experts in the field 
have offered testimony regarding her contributions of major significance in "dust climatology, 
vegetation-climate interactions, and statistical consulting on environmental management." 8 For 
example, Associate Director and Senior Scientist at the 
at 9, stated that the Petitioner "examined spatio-temporal variability in 
Middle East dust storm activity through ground observations, radiometric measurements, and remote 
sensing" and that her findings "led to her development of a seasonal prediction model for Saudi 
Arabian dust storm activity." Likewise, a research scientist at 
asserted that "one of [the Petitioner's] most recognized contributions in the mineral dust aerosols 
area is her unprecedented statistical model for seasonal predictions of Saudi Arabian dust storm 
activities." In addition, noted that "[t]his research focused on a narrow topic in an 
understudied area with a relatively small research community," but the evidence does not show that 
the impact of the Petitioner's work rises to the level of a contribution of major significance in the 
field. 
With respect to the Petitioner's research relating to vegetation-climate interactions, 
associate professor in the Department of Atmospheric Sciences at 
at , indicated that the Petitioner "devised a first of its kind method to assess 
terrestrial impact on regional climate using short records of satellite-based vegetation index." 
further stated that this method has "emerged as the best because it is able to isolate the 
effect of land on temperature and precipitation, while using shorter datasets than previously 
possible." While asserted that the Petitioner's work represented a significant and 
noteworthy achievement, the record does not demonstrate that her method has affected the field of 
atmospheric science in a substantial way or that her work otherwise constitutes a contribution of major 
significance in the field. 
Regarding the Petitioner's work relating to statistical consulting on environmental management, 
a professor at _______ in China 10, indicated that "[o]ne of the 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html; see also 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). 
7 The screenshots the Petitioner provided from this website reflect an option allowing online visitors to "Submit 
Highlight." She has not presented supporting evidence illustrating the significance of having one's research papers 
highlighted on this website. 
8 While we discuss a sampling of the recommendation letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
indicates that he "advised [the Petitioner] for both her Master 's and Ph.D. degrees" at 
stated that he was the Petitioner 's "research advisor when she was pursuing her bachelor 's degree in 
environmental engineering at 
Matter ofY-Y-
Petitioner's most notable contributions was her innovative utilization of data envelopment analysis 
on annual statistics of 46 Chinese cities to discover that [gross domestic product] per capita, city 
scale, and industrial structures are substantial factors that exert significant influence on urban 
environmental sustainability." 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 finding that broadens knowledge in a particular field is tantamount to a 
scientific contribution of major significance in that field. Here, the record does not show that the 
Petitioner's findings have been widely implemented or otherwise represent a scientific contribution 
of major significance in her field. 
The record includes additional recommendation letters from the Petitioner's peers. Although these 
remaining letters praise her work, they do not demonstrate how her contributions are "of major 
significance in the field." As discussed above, the Petitioner has not shown through her citation 
history or other evidence that her work, once published or presented, has been of major significance 
in the field. While the selection of the Petitioner's articles in professional journals or at conference 
proceedings verifies the originality of her work, it does not necessarily reflect that her research is 
considered of major significance. Without sufficient evidence demonstrating that her work 
constitutes original scientific contributions of major significance in the field, the Petitioner has not 
established that she meets this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria. As a result, we need not provide the type of 
final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, 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 acclaim and recognition 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 and recognition of her work are indicative of 
the required sustained national or international acclaim or that they are consistent with a "career of 
acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 
1990); see also section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise 
demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered national or international acclaim in the field, and she is 
one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that she qualifies for classification as an 
individual of extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with 
each considered as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, 
Matter ofY-Y-
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 Skirball Cultural Ctr., 25 I&N Dec. 799, 806 (AAO 2012). 
Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofY-Y-, ID# 02279924 (AAO Mar. 6, 2019)