dismissed EB-1A Case: Statistical Genetics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF C-V-, INC. 
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAR. 14,2016 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a poultry breeding company, seeks to classify the Beneficiary, a statistical geneticist, 
as an individual of extraordinary ability in the sciences. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act)§ 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). This classification makes visas available to foreign 
nationals 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, Texas Service Center, denied the petition. 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 necessitates 
either 1) documentation of the Beneficiary's one-time major achievement, or 2) materials that show the 
Beneficiary meets at least three often regulatory criteria listed under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In his appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence, and 
argues that the Director erred in concluding the Beneficiary did not meet the original contributions of 
major significance criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), and the high salary or other significantly 
high remuneration criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). In addition, the Petitioner maintains 
that the Beneficiary is an individual of extraordinary ability. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
The Petitioner may establish the Beneficiary's eligibility by demonstrating his extraordinary ability 
through sustained national or international acclaim and achievements that have been recognized in 
the field through extensive documentation. Specifically, section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act states, in 
pertinent part: 
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 
Matter ofC-V-, Inc. 
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 has risen 
to the very top of the field of endeavor. 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 a beneficiary's 
sustained acclaim and the recognition of his achievements in the field through a one-time achievement 
(that is a major, internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this 
documentation, then it must provide sufficient qualifying evidence indicating that the beneficiary meets 
at least three of the ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
Satisfaction of at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this 
classification. See Kazarian v. USC IS, 596 F .3d 1115 (9th Cir. 201 0) (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 Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 
1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011) (affirming U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' (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 2010) (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. Prior 0-1 Visa Petitions 
While USCIS has approved at least one 0-1 nonimmigrant visa petition filed on behalf of the 
Beneficiary, the prior approval does not preclude USCIS from denying an immigrant visa petition 
based on a different, if similarly phrased, standard. Sometimes I -140 immigrant petitions are denied 
after users 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. United States Dep 't of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 
1999); Fedin Bros. Co. Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989). We are not required to 
approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not been demonstrated. See, e.g., Matter of 
Church Scientology Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm'r 1988). Furthermore, our authority over 
the service centers is comparable to the relationship between a. court of appeals and a district court. 
Even if a service center director had approved a nonimmigrant petition on behalf of a beneficiary, 
2 
-·--------
(b)(6)
Matter ofC-V-, Inc. 
we would not be bound to follow the decision , if eligibility has not been established. Louisiana 
Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 2000 WL 282785 at *3 (E.D. La . Mar. 15, 2000), aff'd , 248 F.3d 
1139 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 819 (2001). 
B. Evidentiary 
Criteria 
Under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), the Petitioner , as initial evidence , may present the 
Beneficiary's one-time achievement that is a major, internationally recognized award. In this case, 
the Petitioner has not stated or shown that the Beneficiary is the recipient of a qualifying award at a 
level similar to that of the Nobel Prize. As such, it must provide at least three of the ten types of 
documentation listed under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) to meet the basic eligibility requirements. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner met the authorship of scholarly articles criterion under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). The record supports this finding. The Petitioner demonstrated that the 
Beneficiary published a number of papers, including a 
article , entitled 
a article , entitled 
; and a 
entitled , 
On appeal, the Petitioner specifically challenges the Director's findings relating to two criteria, the 
original contributions of major significance criterion under 8 C .F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), and the high 
salary and other significantly high remuneration criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i x). As the 
Petitioner has not argued that the Director erred in regard to, or continued to maintain that the 
Beneficiary meets, other enumerated criteria , the Petitioner has abandoned these issues. Sepulv eda 
v. UnitedStat es Att 'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005) ; Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-
27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *1, 9 (E.D.N .Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (the United States District Court 
found the plaintiff's positions to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal). 
Moreover, although in its initial filing and response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the 
Petitioner discussed the awards and prizes criterion, the membership in associations criterion , the 
published material criterion, the participation as a judge criterion, and the leading and critical role 
criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) , (ii), (iii), (iv) and (viii), the submissions do not support a 
finding that the Beneficiary meets these requirement s. Specifically , the documents do not 
demonstrate that the Beneficiary has received a nationally or internationally recognized prize or 
award , has been a member of an association that requires outstanding achievements, has been 
featured in qualifying publications , has actually judged the work of others in his or an allied field, or 
has performed in a leading or critical role for an organization with a distinguished reputation. While 
the Beneficiary has performed an important role for his employer , the Petitioner, the record does not 
substantiate the Petitioner's distinguished reputation. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) . Accordingl y, 
had the Petitioner not abandoned these issues on appeal , we would conclude that the Beneficiary did 
3 
············ ··· ·· ---------
(b)(6)
Matter ojC-V-, Inc. 
not meet any of the abovementioned criterion. We now tum to the criteria at issue on appeal. For 
the reasons discussed below, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary meets either of 
those criteria. 
Evidence of the alien 's original scient?fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
On appeal, relying on a letter from , a professor at the Department of Animal 
Sciences, the Petitioner maintains that the Beneficiary meets this 
criterion. To satisfy this criterion, a beneficiary's contributions must be both original and of major 
significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). The term "original" and the phrase "major 
significance" are not superfluous and, thus, they have some meaning. Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple 
Investor Fund, L.P., 51 F. 3d 28, 31 (3d Cir. 1995) (quoted inAPWUv. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 626 
(2d Cir. 2003)). · Regardless of the field, the phrase "contributions of major significance in the field" 
requires substantiated impacts beyond one's employer, clients or customers. See Visinscaia, 4 F. 
Supp. 3d at 134-35 (upholding a finding that a ballroom dancer had not met this criterion because 
she did not demonstrate her impact in the field as a whole). 
According to the Beneficiary is one of the Petitioner 's geneticists, and he is responsible for 
DNA sequence analyses of the Petitioner's pureline genetic chickens. indicated that the 
Beneficiary "has developed several methods that have provided significant contribution to our 
understanding of genetics and at great benefit to [the Petitioner]." Specifically, the Beneficiary has 
"developed a method of imputation that saves [the Petitioner] millions of dollars by increasing the 
accuracy of chicken selection"; has "developed a method for next generation sequencing data that 
can detect the causative mutation for chicken disease and eliminate the disease very quickly"; and 
has "developed a state of the art tool to identify Salmonella strains that cause great loses to the 
chicken industry and a significant risk to the food industry." 
In support of his statement that the Beneficiary's work "has made significant contributions to DNA 
research," noted that the Petitioner "has authored 16 scholarly articles," has "presented his 
findings at numerous national and international meetings," has been invited to "participate in major 
sessions in international meetings," and has been "invited to teach two separate courses at 
to professors and PhD research scientists." also provided that the Petitioner 
"has shown the skill and intelligence to implement new techniques in order to make this program [a] 
success for [the Petitioner]." 
The record includes additional reference letters. According to the Beneficiary' s supervisor, 
who is the Petitioner's Director of Genomics and Quantitative Genetics, the Beneficiary's 
"research has contributed original and significant gains toward genetic improvement of (the 
Petitioner's] commercial chicken lines." Specifically, the Beneficiary 's work has led to chickens 
that are "55 grams heavier, have 0.30% more breast meat on the carcass, lay one additional egg, and 
need 1.2% less feed to reach these improved performance figures." offered an identical 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter ofC-V-, Inc. 
assessment as noting that the Beneficiary "has shown the skill and intelligence to 
implement new techniques in order to make this program [a] success for [the Petitioner]."' 
While the record documents the Beneficiary's contributions to his employer, the plain language of 
the criterion requires a showing of contributions to the field, which extends beyond the Petitioner. 
As discussed in Visinscaia, the court agreed with our finding that "the regulatory requirement that 
the petitioner demonstrate the 'major significance' of any original contributions means that the 
petitioner's work must significantly affect her field of endeavor." 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134. The court 
further observed that without "specific evidence" that a petitioner's techniques had been adopted in 
the field, we correctly found that she did not meet this criterion. !d. at 134-35. Here, the Petitioner 
has not illustrated that the Beneficiary's contributions reached beyond his employer. The filings 
lack information verifying that there is a wide acceptance or adoption of the Beneficiary methods in 
the field, or that other companies and/or scientists, not associated with the Petitioner, have relied on 
the Beneficiary's findings in their own projects. Even assuming the Beneficiary's results are 
proprietary to his employer, the Petitioner has not confirmed that the Beneficiary's solutions have set 
a standard noted in the industry and to which the Petitioner's competitors aspire. Without proof that 
the Beneficiary has impacted the field as a whole, at a level consistent with contributions of major 
significance, the Petitioner has not satisfied this criterion. 
The record verifies the Beneficiary's authorship of scholarly articles and presentation of research 
findings. The regulations contain a separate criterion on the authorship of published materials. See 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). As discussed above, the Beneficiary has met the authorship criterion. 
Publication and presentations denote that the Beneficiary's work has been disseminated in the field. 
To meet the contributions criterion, the Petitioner must also show impact in the field after 
dissemination. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009), aff'd in part , 596 F.3d 
1115, 1122 (9th Cir. 2010). In this case, while the evidence confirms that the Beneficiary's research 
is original and contributes to the pool of general knowledge in the field, it does not establish that his 
impact in the field has risen to a level consistent with contributions of major significance. The 
Petitioner submitted a 2011 article, entitled 
that cited the Beneficiary's 2009 
article among over 40 other sources. In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner maintained 
that other published papers had also cited the Beneficiary's articles. The Petitioner, however, has 
not corroboration this 
information. Unsubstantiated statements are not sufficient for the purposes of 
meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici , 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Assoc. 
Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 
1972)). The Petitioner has not proven that the limited citation frequency is indicative of the 
Beneficiary's impact in the field at a level consistent with a finding of "major significance." 
The Petitioner has submitted letters initially written to support an 0-1 nonimmigrant visa petition 
filed on behalf of the Beneficiary. These letters are from a professor at the 
Departments of Animal Sciences and Molecular Evolutionary Genetics, 
1 The letters from included multiple identical passages and paragraphs. 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of C- V-, Inc. 
a research geneticist at 
employed at the Department 
in the Netherlands; and 
of Genetic Evaluation and Biometrics 
2 While both 
who is 
at 
affirmed that 
the Beneficiary has made qualifying contributions, their discussions are conclusory. Specifically, 
maintained that the Beneficiary's results have "been implemented in both livestock 
genomics and human genomics, influencing a large section of genetics and genomics scientific 
field," but did not offer an example of a research team using the Beneficiary's findings. Similarly, 
stated that the Beneficiary's "computational methodologies are widely used toward 
the selection of superior breeding stock" without identifying an independent group that has adopted 
these methodologies . praised the Beneficiary's work at but did not indicate the 
Beneficiary's influence there extended beyond that company. The written support provided 
information on the Beneficiary's academic and professional achievements, but did not include 
specific examples of how his research has impacted the field as a whole, or that the impact is of 
"major significance" in the field. While the Beneficiary has engaged in genetic research, at issue is 
whether there is specific documentation corroborating his impact in the field as a whole. The 
Petitioner has not made such a showing. 
Solicited letters that do not specifically identify contributions or include specific examples of how 
those contributions influenced the field as a whole are insufficient to meet this criterion.3 Kazarian, 
580 F.3d at 1036. The opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and have been 
considered above. users may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements offered as 
expert testimony. See Matter of Caron Int 'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (eomm'r 1988). However, 
users is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding a foreign national's 
eligibility for the benefit sought. !d. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition 
is not presumptive proof of eligibility; users may, as this decision has done above, evaluate the 
content of those letters as to whether they support the foreign national's eligibility. See id. at 795; 
see also Matter ofV-K- , 24 I&N Dec. 500 n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does 
not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). users may even give less weight to an opinion that is not 
corroborated, in accord with other information or is in any way questionable. Caron Int 'l, 19 I&N 
Dec. at 795; see also Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 (upholding our decision to give minimal 
weight to solicited letters from colleagues or associates that do not provide details on contributions 
of major significance in the field). 
In this case, while the record establishes the Beneficiary's value to the Petitioner, it lacks specific 
evidence showing the Beneficiary's influence beyond his employer. The submissions do not 
demonstrate his impact in the field as a whole, at a level consistent with a finding of "major 
significance in the field." Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied this criterion. 
2 The letters from included multiple verbatim passages. For example, the concluding 
paragraphs , in which the authors provided a summary assessment of the Beneficiary 's qualifications, are identical. 
3 In 201 O, the Kazarian comt reiterated that our conclusion that " letters from physics professors attesting to [the self­
petitioner ' s] contributions in the field " were insufficient was "consistent with the relevant regulatory language ." 596 
F.3d at 1122. 
6 
(b)(6)
Matter ofC-V-, Inc. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services. in relation to others in the field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the Beneficiary meets this criterion because his "salary 
placed him several standard deviations above the normal or somewhere in the top 1-5% of 
geneticists." The record does not support this statement. Specifically, the Petitioner has not 
submitted sufficient evidence demonstrating what constitutes "high salary" or "other significantly 
high remuneration" in the field nationally. As the plain language of this criterion requires a 
comparison in earning between the Beneficiary and others in his field, to meet this criterion, the 
Petitioner must provide information relating to other research scientists' income, including senior 
scientists and principal research scientists. See 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
In a December 2014 letter, the Petitioner's Director of Human Resources, affirmed 
that the Petitioner will pay the Beneficiary an annual salary of $112,915. The Beneficiary's 
Statements of Earnings and Deductions reflected that as a statistical geneticist, he received between 
$4,447.34 and $4,527.88 in "Reg Pay Salary" biweekly from January 4 through April11, 2015. The 
Petitioner filed a number of online printouts, such as those from indeed.com, payscale.com, 
glassdoor.com, and flcdatacenter.com, relating to research scientists' salary. The record, however, 
lacks specific information showing what constitutes "high salary" or "other significantly high 
remuneration" nationally. Most of the salary information is restricted to , Arkansas, the 
Beneficiary's place of employment. The plain language of the criterion, "others in the field," 
necessitates a review of salary information of members of the field working outside of the 
Beneficiary's locality and with more experience, including senior scientists, who average $100,000 
per year, and principal research scientists, who average $107,000 per year, according to the 
information from indeed.com. Furthermore, evidence that the Beneficiary's salary is higher than the 
average salary of other research scientists is insufficient to demonstrate his "high salary" or 
"significantly high remuneration." For the above reasons, the Petitioner has not satisfied this 
criterion. 
C. Summary 
The Beneficiary has been working as a geneticist for the Petitioner for a number of years. The 
reference letters stated in general terms that he has been capable and skillful at his position, and they 
demonstrated his importance to his employer. The record, however, does not establish that the 
Beneficiary meets at least three of the ten criteria listed under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
III. CONCLUSION 
Had the Petitioner included the requisite material under at least three evidentiary categories, in 
accordance with the Kazarian opinion, our next step of analysis would be a final merits 
determination that considers all of the submissions in the context of whether the Beneficiary has 
achieved: (1) a "level of expertise indicating that [he] is one of that small percentage who have risen 
Matter of C- V-, Inc. 
to the very top of the field of endeavor," and (2) "that the [Petitioner] has sustained national or 
international acclaim" and that his "achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. As the Petitioner has not done 
so, the proper conclusion is that it has not satisfied the antecedent regulatory requirement of 
presenting initial evidence set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). See 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 record in the aggregate does not support a finding that the Beneficiary has 
achieved the level of expertise required for the classification. The Petitioner has not demonstrated 
by a preponderance of the evidence that the Beneficiary is an individual of extraordinary ability in 
the field of genetic research. A review of the submissions in the aggregate does not confirm that he 
has distinguished himself to such an extent that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or 
international acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the very top of his field. The Petitioner, 
therefore, has not established the Beneficiary's eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act 
and the petition may not be approved. 
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, 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 ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofC-V-, Inc., ID# 15906 (AAO Mar. 14, 2016) 
0