dismissed EB-1A Case: Sustainable Agriculture

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF P-R-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. 3, 2018 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a sustainable agriculture researcher, seeks classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability in the sciences. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
203(b)(I)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(I)(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 Texas 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 presents additional evidence and asserts that he meets at least three of the 
ten criteria. In addition, he contends that he has demonstrated extraordinary ability in his field. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(I)(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 m 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 P-R-
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth two options for satisfying this classification's initial ev idence 
requirements. First, a p eti tioner can demonstrate a one-time achiev eme nt (that is a major , 
interna tionally recognized award). Alterna tively, he or she must provide documentation that meets 
at least three of the ten c~tegories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (incl uding items 
such as awards , member ships, and published material .in certain medi a). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204 .5(h)(4) allows a petitioner to submit compar able mate rial if he or she is able to demo nstrate 
that the stand ards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h) (3)( i)-(x) do not readily apply to his or her occupati on. 
Where a petitioner meet s these initial evi dence r equir ements, we then consider the tota lity of the 
material provid ed in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
natio nal or international acclaim and demon strates that the indi vidua l is amo ng the s mall perce ntage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazaria n v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 111 5 (9th Cir. 201 0) 
(disc ussing a two-part review where the docume ntation is tirst cou nted and then, if fulfill ing the 
required number of criteria , considered in the context of a !ina ! merits determin ation ); see also 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 13 1-32 (D.D. C. 2013 ); Rijal v. USCJS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.O. Wash . 20 II). Thi s two-step analysis is con sis tent with our holdin g that the "truth is to be 
determined not by the quant ity of eviden ce alone but b y its quality," as well as the principle that we 
· examine "eac h piece of evidence to r relevance , probative value, and cre dibili ty, both individua lly 
and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determin e whether the fact to be proven is 
probably true ." Matrer ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AA O 201 0). 
II. ANALYSIS 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner was working as a senior. resea rch associate in the Plant Biology 
Division at the in Oklahoma. As the Petiti oner has not 
indicated or estab lished that ,he has received a major, intern ationa lly recogn ized award, he m ust 
satisfy at least three of the ten criter ia at 8 C. F.R . § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-( x). In deny ing the petition, the 
Director found that the Petitioner met the judging and authorsh ip of schola rly a rtic les cri teria, and 
the record supp orts those findings.
1 
On appeal , the Petitioner asserts that he also meets the original 
contrib ution s of major signiticance criterion. 2 For the reasons discusse d below, the record does not 
support a tinding that the Petitioner satisfies at least three crite ria. 
Evidence of the alien ·s original scientific, scholarly, artistic. athletic, or business ­
related contributions of major signlficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3 )(v). 
The Petitioner submitted his publication s and presentat ions, citati on evidenc e for his publi shed work, 
and letters of reco mmendatio n from colleagues. The Director ackn ow ledged the Petitioner's 
submission of the precedin g evidence , but found that it was not sufficient to demonstrate that the 
1 
See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)( iv), (vi). For example, the record shows that the Petitioner peer reviewed art icles for 
In addit ion, he authored articles in profe ssio nal 
pub! ications such as . 
2 See 8 C. F.R. § 204.5(h)(J)(v) . 
2 
.
Matter of'P-R-
Petitioner's work constituted original contributions of major sign ificance m the field. For the 
reasons discu ssed below , we agree with that determination. 
On appeal, the Petitioner as~e rts that he has published research articles in highly ranked journa ls3 
and that his citation record sets "him apart from the vast majorit y of his peers. " With respect to the 
Petitioner's published work, the regul ations contain a separate and distinct crite rion concerning the 
authorship of scholarly articles in professio nal public ations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), a category 
that he has already satisfied. Publicati ons and presentations are not· sufficient evidence under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) abse nt evidence that they were of "major significance" in the tie ld. 
Kazarian v. USC IS, 580 F.Jd 1030, I 036 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 11 22. There 
is no presumption that every published article or conference presentation is a contribution of major 
significa nce in the tield ; rathe r, a petitioner must document the actual impact of his article or 
presentation. 
As one type of evidence of the impact of his work, the record includes a June 2017 
citation report indicating that his 2013 article entitled 
was "cited by 36." 4 His next most cited 
articles, 
~00~ ood _ . 
(2005), were each "cited by 23" including self-citations. Regarding 
the remaining articles the Petitioner has aut hored, the afore menti oned report reflects 
less than 15 citations for each. 
The Petitioner references an article writ ten by and enti tled " How 
to evaluate individual resea rchers working in the natural and life sciences meaningfully? A proposal 
of methods based on percentiles of citations." The se authors state t hat "[ n)umerous stud ies in 
bibliometrics have shown that citation counts are time- and field-dependent. We can ther efore 
expect a varying number of citations for publications in different fields and years." The Petitioner 
maintains that "using percentiles normali zed for tield and year of publication" is a reliable method 
for com paring the scie ntific performance of individual researcher s and assessing the relative impact 
of their papers. 
In supp ort of his claim that his work has "bee n among the most cited in the field in the past several 
years," the Petitioner offers a 200 6-201 6 "InCites Essential Science Indicato rs" 
(IESI) chart showing baseline s and percentiles for various research fields, including "M icrobiology. " 
According to the Petitioner , the chart reflects that his aforementioned art icle from 2013 was cited at 
a leve l placing it among the top 10% of papers in its tie ld by year of publication. In addi tion, he 
contends that his 2015 article entitled 
3 That a publication bears a high ranking is reflective of the publication's overall citation rate. It does not, however, 
demonstrate the influence of any particular author within the field or show that an author's research has had an impact within 
the field. 
~ We note that several of these citations were self-cites by the Petitioner and his coauthors. 
3 
.
Malter of P-R-
and 
was also within the top I 0% of microbiology papers for that year. Howe ver, the subm itted 
IESI chart was published in 2016, and therefore does not capture citations that occurred afte r 2016, 
while the Petiti oner's citation report is dated June 2017.6 Because the IESI chart is 
not contemporaneous with the Petitioner 's data, he has not shown that it provides a 
proper analysi s of his citation record . Regardless , the submitted data doe s not establish that the 
Petitioner's research findings in the aforementioned articles rise to the level of contri butions of 
major significan ce in the field. 
Gen erally, citations can contirm that the tield has taken interest in a resea rcher's work. The 
Petitioner submitted several examples of articles that ~ ited to his work; however they do not reflec t 
that his work was singled out as particularly important. Rather, the Petitioner' s findings were 
utilized as background informa tion to the author s' papers. In this case, the Petitione r has not 
demon strated that 'the citation s to his work, considered both individuall y and collectively , are 
commensurate with contributions "of major significance in the tield." 
As 
another fom1 of evidence under this criterion, the Petitioner conte nds that a numbe r of expert s 
have offered testimon y regarding his contributions of major significance. 7 For e xample, 
, a profe ssor at University .in China, discu sses the Petitioner' s developmen t of 
software "for analyzing alternative splicing events. " states that "[t)his software, 
. offer s 
several features specific to alternative splicing 
events that make it a favorable choice over other more general purpo se genetic analysi s suites. For 
this reason, it has been employed by several other scientists working within the same area." The 
evidence, howeve r, does not show that the Petitioner's software is widely utili zed, has 
substantially influenced the tield, or otherwise rises to the level of an original contribution of major 
significance in sustainable agriculture. 
, an as sociate research fellow at the 
Taiwan , indicates that the Petition er "mapped the transcript ome of iron-d eficient 
and iron-suffi cient Arabidopsis thaliana roots" and "found tha t clusters of genes . . . were 
alternativel y spliced under iron-deficient conditions in root epidermal cells." further 
states that this work "has provided a platform for the devel opment of efficienc y genotypes to 
improve sustain able iron management in agriculture. " However, the record does not show that the 
Petitioner's findings relating to alternative splicing have affected the field of sustainable agriculture in 
a substantial way or that his work otherwise constitute s contrib utions of major significance in the 
field. 
5 This article was "cited by 2" according to the June 2017 report. 
6 
Information from the website that accompanies the IESI chart states that its citation "data is updated 
six times a year." . 
7 While we discuss only a sample of these letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 
.
Matter 4 P-R-
With respe ct to the Petitioner's stud y relating to the use of ecto myco rrhiza l fungi to fac ilitate 
revege tation · of tly ash disposal site s, , a principal scientist at the 
_ , 
states that the Petition er "iden~itied fou r isolates of L. ji-aterna and P. 
tinctorius that are strong candidates for utilization in bioremediation." further notes that 
the Petitioner and develop ed "a root organ culture from fungi which allows researchers to inoculate 
tree sapling s with ectomyc orrhizal fungi," but does not offer spec ific examples of how Petitioner 's 
work has influ enced the bioremediation industry or sustainabl e agr iculture fi eld, or has otherwis e 
been of major sign ifican ce in the field. 
Furthermore, , 
an associate professor at , indicates that he and the Petitioner 
"ide ntified a clay particle-b ased mas s production and dissemi natio n meth od for S verm!lera that 
results in high er yiel ds of switchg rass because of the fungi's effect on drought to leran ce and biomass 
amplification."~! In addition , . a techno logy sourcin g and externa l research & 
development manage r for :., asserts that the Petitioner's "research has 
the potential to substantially improve agriculture productivit y ilnd sustainabilit y, as well as to enable 
cost effective and safe commercial deployment of this technology." She further states that 
is collaborat ing with on "the potential developm ent and commercialization of this 
research."\/ These statement s, however, are prospecti ve and do not show that the Petitioner' s method 
has already impacted the field or 
been successfull y commer cially depl oyed in the agricultu ral 
indu stry. Thu s, expectations regardin g the possible f uture impact of the Petitione r' s 
method are not sufficient evidence that his work is considere d by the greater field to be of major 
significance. The plain l anguage of the regulation require s that the Petitioner 's original 
contributions be "of maj or significan ce in the field" rather than mainl y affect ing project s tor his 
employer and its research partners. See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 1 34-35 (upholding a finding that 
a ba llroom dancer had not met this criterion because she did not corrob orat e her impact in the field 
as a w hole). 
The record include s additi onal recomm enda tion letters from the Petitioner's peers. Alth ough these 
remaining letters praise his work, they do not demonstrate how his contributions are "of major 
significance in the tield ." Instead, the letters refer ence the importance of the Petitio ner's wo rks as 
indicated b y their publication in profes siona l journ als. As discu ssed above, the Petitioner has not 
shown through his citation history or other evidence that his work, once publi sht:d or presented, has 
been of major significance in the field. While the selection of the Petitioner's article s in professiona l 
journals or at conference proceedings verifies the originalit y of his work, it does not necessarily 
reflect that his researc h is considered o f major significance. Without sufti cient evidence 
demonstrating that his work constitute s o riginal sc ientific contributions of major signifi cance in the 
field, the Petiti oner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
8 According to the June 2017 report, the Petitioner's article relating to this work was "cited by 2." 
9 The appellate submission includes an 2016 "Material Transfer Agreement"· between and 
but this document does not identify the specific research material being transferred or its inventors: 
5 
Malter ofP-R-
Ill. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner is not eligible because he has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a 
qualifying one-time achievement or documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria listed at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Thus, we do not ne.ed to fully address the totality of the materials in a 
final merits determination. Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 119-20. Nevertheless, we advise that we have 
reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a finding that the Petitioner 
has established the level of expertise required for the classification sought. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of P-R-, 10# 995146 (AAO Apr. 3, 2018) 
6