dismissed EB-1A Case: Scientific Research

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF X-L-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JULY 10, 2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a 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 he must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional documentation and a brief, arguing that he meets 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 of X-L-
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 it is able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not readily 
apply to a beneficiary'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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a postdoctoral researcher at the Because he has 
not indicated or established that he has received a major, internationally recognized award, he must 
satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 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 reviewed manuscripts for journals, such as 
and served as an assistant editor for In addition, the 
Petitioner authored scholarly articles in publications, such as the 
Accordingly, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner satisfied the judging and 
scholar! y articles criteria. 
On appeal , the Petitioner maintains that he meets one additional criterion , discussed below . We have 
reviewed all of the e vidence in the record and conclude that i t does not support a finding that the 
Petition er satisfies the plain language requirements of at least three criteria. 
2 
.
Matter of X-L-
Evidence of the alien's original scient(fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field, 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The Director concluded that the "number of citations of [the Petitioner's] work, when compared with 
that of the leading scientists in the field, whose publications ... have garnered citations numbered 
well in the thousands, does not substantiate contributions of major contributions of major 
significance the field." On appeal, the Petitioner argues that "this statement amounts to an 
imposition of a threshold number of total citations that is apparently required to demonstrate major 
significance." Moreover, the Petitioner argues that rating among the top 10% most cited in a subject 
area is the most important indicator of a publication's significance and "allows for one's individual 
papers to be compared to all of the many thousands of papers published in their field each year and 
reasonably assess the relative impact that those papers have had." 
In order to satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner must establish that not only 
has he made original contributions but that they have been of major significance in the field. For 
example, a petitioner may show that the contributions have been widely implemented throughout the 
field, have remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major 
significance in the field. Moreover, we generally agree that the Director's comparison of the 
Petitioner's overall number of citations to that of other scientists or researchers in his field is not 
appropriate in determining whether he has made original contributions of major significance in the 
field. Rather, the Director's evaluation of the Petitioner's total citations relative to others in his field 
would be more relevant in a final merits determination to demonstrate his sustained national or 
international acclaim, that he is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, 
and that his achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. 
Furthermore, a publication that bears a high ranking or impact factor is reflective of the publication's 
overall citation rate. It does not, however, demonstrate the influence of any particular author within 
the field, how an author's research impacted the field, or establishes a contribution of major 
significance in the field. 
The Petitioner argues and offers evidence that ten of his papers are in the top 10% most cited by 
subject area for the year in which they were published. For example, his two highest cited articles, 
1 ranked among the top 10% with 
41 and 28 citations , respectively , while his lowe st cited article , 
also placed in the top 10% with two 
citations. The comparative ranking of a paper' s citation rate does not automatically establish it as a 
majorl y significant contribution to the field. Rather, the appropri ate analysis is to determin e whether 
a petiti oner h as shown that his individu al articles or presentations, factoring in citations a nd other 
corroborating evid ence, have been considered import ant at a level consistent with original 
contribut ions o f m ajor signific ance in the field . Although citations s how that his resea rch h as 
received attention from the field , the Petitioner did not establish that the citations to his individu al 
3 
.
Matter of X-L-
papers demonstrate their "major significance." While the Petitioner submitted samples of papers 
that cited to his work as background information for the authors' papers, they do not reflect that his 
works were singled out as particularly important. 
Further , in reviewing his recommendation letters, the authors discuss the Petitioner 's research 
without demonstrating the impact of his work in the field. 1 For instance, 
investigator at the indicated his collaboration 
with the Petitioner in publishing the above-mentioned paper in the 
and stated that the Petitioner's "work was critical to the project and 
publication." 2 Likewise, investigator for in talking about the Petitioner's 
article published in the stated that his "methodology 
played a crucial role in these projects, and, therefore, he has made original contribution in the 
corresponding publications." Neither nor demonstrated the influence of the 
Petitioner ' s work on the field beyond publishing articles in journals. Publications 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 v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009), a.ff'd in part, 596 F.3d 
1115. 
In addition, the letters speculate on the prospective potential impact of the petitioner's research. For 
instance, professor at claimed that the Petitioner's "work 
will lead to the discovery of new antimicrobial agents to help solving [sic] the increasing concern of 
drug-resistant bacteria." Moreover , lecturer at the 
asserted that the Petitioner's work "holds great promise for the development of drugs that will be 
able to cure or prevent many diseases." Further, professor at 
opined that "the therapeutics created by [the Petitioner] [are] a very promising tool to use in practical 
settings." The letters, however, do not demonstrate how the Petitioner's work already qualifies as a 
contribution of major significance in the field. 
The letters considered above primarily contain attestations of the Petitioner's status in the field 
without providing specific examples of contributions that rise to a level consistent with major 
significance. Letters that repeat the regulatory language but do not explain how an individual ' s 
contributions have already influenced the field are insufficient to establish original contributions of 
major significance in the field. Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036, a.ff'd in part 596 F.3d at 1115. 
Moreover, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory statements. 1756, Inc. v. The US Atty 
Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
1 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 
Petitions; Revisions to the Acijudicator 's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADI /-14 8-9 (Dec. 22, 2010) , 
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). 
2 Although we discuss a sampling of letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 
.
Matter of X-L-
Further, the Petitioner contends that he provided media reports of his findings showing the 
significance of his work. The record contains screenshots; however, the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate that the news articles show the field's recognition of his research as having had major 
significance. For example, the Petitioner did not show that the relevant websites garner significant 
recognition from the field. Moreover, similar to his recommendation letters, the screenshots focus 
on the possible influence 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 "[s]cientists 
have developed a potential new therapy," "[t]he new study could provide the foundation for 
treatments for a range of other diseases," and "[t]he research team is working to optimize the 
treatment for potential use in humans ... hopes the method could someday deliver long-lasting 
doses ... to patients in need." In addition, the Petitioner provided an article from the 
relating to two scientific teams who independently worked on the same issue at the 
same time without knowing it. Although the article discusses the history and findings, it does not 
indicate how the research qualifies as an original contribution of major significance in the field. 
Finally, the Petitioner argues that he signed a contract with to transfer his 
technological patent to the company. A patent may recognize the originality of an invention or idea 
but does not necessarily establish that it is a contribution of major significance in the field. The 
record contains a letter from CEO, who stated that licensed one of 
the Petitioner's provisional patents, which is the only technique it could find on the market. 
Moreover, indicated that was able to hire "a few PhD level researchers to 
focus on the application and further development of [the Petitioner's] methodology." While 
discussed the impact of the Petitioner's technique/patent on , he did not 
demonstrate its influence on the overall field. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner has not met his burden of showing that he has made original 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
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 individu als 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 
5 
Matter of X-L-
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 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 X-L-, ID# 1487385 (AAO July 10, 2018)