dismissed EB-1A Case: Viral Immunology

Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
MATTER OF G-X- DATE: SEPT. 18, 2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a postdoctoral researcher in viral immunology, seeks classification of the Beneficiary 
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)(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 Nebraska Service Center denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Beneficiary met the required three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria 
but that he did not qualify for extraordinary ability classification in the final merits analysis. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and contends that the Beneficiary qualifies for 
this classification. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(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. 
.
Matier of G-X-
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that sm<:1ll percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation 
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) . Alternatively, he or she must provide documentation that meets 
at least three of the ten categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items 
such as awards, memberships , and published material in certain media). 
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. USC IS, 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 getermination); 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 ofChawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a postdoctoral researcher. As she has not received a major, internationally 
recognized award, the record must demonstrate that she satisfies at least three of the ten criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
In denying the petition, the Director found that the Petitioner met two criteria : participation as a 
judge of the work of others under 8 C .F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and authorship of scholarly articles 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) . On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that she also meets the 
criterion requiring original contributions of major significance under 8 C .F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
Upon reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we concur with the Director that the Petitioner has 
met the judging and scholarly articles criteria but not the original contributions criterion. Therefore, 
the record does not support a finding that the Petitioner satisfies at least three criteria. 
Evidence of the alien 's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work 
of others in the same or a~ allied field of specification for which classification is 
sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The record reflects that the Petitioner reviewed manuscripts for and 
which consists of judging the work of others in the field. Therefore, the Petitioner 
has established that she meets this criterion. · 
2 
.
Matier of G-X-
Evidence of the alien ·s original scientific, scholarly, art1st1c, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in lhefield. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
This regulatory criterion contains multiple evidentiary elements that the Petitioner must satisfy. The 
contributions must have already been realized, rather than being prospective possibilities. They 
must be original and scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related in nature. Finally, the 
contributions must 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 has 
meaning. See Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 51 F.3d 28, 31 (3d Cir. 1995), 
quoted in APWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 626 (2d Cir. 2003). The term "contributions of major 
significance" connotes that the Petitioner's work has significantly impacted the field. See 
Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp: 3d at 134. 
The Director held that the Petitioner did not meet this criterion, concluding that her citation history, 
when compared with that of the very top scientists in the field, does not establish that her 
contributions are of major significance in the field. The Petitioner challenges this conclusion and 
states that her research publications have been cited 641 times as of September 2017, adding that this 
is an accomplishment that most scholars at the same career stage have not achieved. She states that 
the Director's decision precludes young scientists who are early in their career from meeting this 
criterion. The Petitioner also compares her most cited works since 2006 with those of three 
professors who have written letters in support of this petition, which we will discuss further below, 
noting that the Petitioner's citation levels exceed those of the professors. 
First, we note that the age of a petitioner is not relevant to whether he or she meets the statutory and 
regulatory requirements for extraordinary ability classification. Second, the Director's comparison 
of the Petitioner's citations to that of other scientists or researchers in her field is generally not 
appropriate in determining whether she has made original contributions of major significance in the 
field. Instead, the Director's evaluation of the Petitioner's citations to others in her field is more 
relevant in a· final merits determination demonstrating 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. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2)-(3). The focus here is whether the Petitioner meets this criterion of original 
contributions of major significance. 
The record contains several letters that highlight the Petitioner's contributions related to liver cancer 
research and to the West Nile Virus.1 With respect to her liver cancer research, the record contains a 
letter from , professor of medicine and director of the 
stating that the Petitioner's "work represents one of the most important research articles in clarifying 
the role of the hedgehog pathway in liver cancer, the 4th death-causing cancer of the world." She 
states that "Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the major form of liver cancer" and that "it is critical 
to understand the molecular basis of HCC and develop proper cancer treatments." 
1 While we do not discuss every letter submitted , alt were reviewed and considered in reaching our decision. 
3 
.
Matter of G-X-
indicates that the Petitioner and her fom1er colleagues in China "found that hedgehog signaling 
activation occurs frequently in HCC" and that specific inhibition of hedgehog signaling in HCC cells 
"decreased the expression of hedgehog target genes, inhibited cancer cell growth and resulted in 
apoptosis." The record also contains a letter from . a professor in the Department of 
Hepatobiliary Surgery at in China, who states 
that the Petitioner found that "cyclopamine tartrate salt (CycT) ... was effective in inhibiting the 
pathway and shrinking tumors derived from basal cell carcinomas ... the first report that CycT is an 
effective inhibitor of hedgehog-signaling-mediated carcinogenesis." 
While the Petitioner's research appears to be an original contribution, the record does not 
demonstrate its significance to the field. The authors of the letter~ refer to the Petitioner's citation 
record as evidence of her impact and offer their opinion of her achievements. For example, 
states that the Petitioner's work "demonstrated that hedgehog signaling activation is an 
important event for the development of human HCCs" and that "[i]t was an outstanding contribution 
to the liver cancer research community." 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, ajf d 
in part 596 F.3d at 1115. Furthermore, an agency "may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions 
statements ... submitted in evidence as expert testimony," but it is ultimately responsible for making 
the final determination regarding an individual's eligibility for the benefit sought. Matter of Caron 
Int ·1. Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). Here, the record does not establish that the 
citations to the Petitioner's work on hedgehog pathway signaling and liver cancer have impacted the 
field in a significant way. Additionally, the letters written on her behalf lack specific details of how 
her research has influenced the field, and thus cannot establish eligibility for this criterion. Thus, we 
find that the Petitioner has not demonstrated how her research has impacted the field to constitute an 
original contribution of major significance. 
The record also contains letters referencing the Petitioner's research on the West Nile virus (WNV). 
For example, in a letter from , professor in the Department of Animal, Dairy 
and Veterinary Sciences and Director of the Institute for Antiviral Research at 
he states that the Petitioner studied two WNV mutant strains, and claims that "[the Petitioner's] 
research results represent important progress toward the development of WNV vaccines." He states 
that the Petitioner's research has demonstrated that these two mutant strains are useful WNV vaccine 
candidates. Additionally, an assistant professor in the 
Department of Molecular and Cellular Neuroscience at the states that 
"[the Petitioner] has made important contributions in understanding WNV infection and immune 
responses" that "have significantly contributed to the research for developing safe and effective 
WNV vaccines." 
Both authors indicate that their teams have cited to the Petitioner, as have other independent 
researchers, according to Similarly, both authors praise the Petitioner's work and 
opine that her research is important to the development of vaccines. However, neither letter 
provides specific details on how her work has already impacted the field. See Kazarian, 580 F .3d at 
4 
Matter of G-X-
1036. Therefore, the record does not establish that the Petitioner's work on the WNV qualifies as an 
original contribution of major significance in the field. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
The record contains evidence tha~ the Petitioner has published scholarly articles in the Journal of 
Virology, and in the journals Carcinogenesis, Oncogene, Vaccine, and Nature Cell Biology. We find 
that the Petitioner meets this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner is not eligible because she 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 need to fully address the totality of the materials in a 
final merits determination. 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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofG-X-, ID# 1559067 (AAO Sept. 18, 2018) 
5