remanded EB-1A Case: Agricultural Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 16, 2025 In Re: 36184199 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a researcher, seeks first preference immigrant classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. 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 petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner satisfied at least three of the ten required regulatory criteria listed at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent 
with the following analysis. 
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 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a 
major, internationally recognized award) or qualifying 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). 
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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established her receipt of a major, internationally 
recognized award, she must satisfy at least three of the regulatory criteria. The Petitioner claims that 
she meets four of the regulatory criteria, namely that she has participated as a judge of the work of 
others in her field, made original contributions of major significance, has authored scholarly articles, 
and has performed in a leading or critical role for a distinguished organization or establishment. 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), (v), (vi), (viii). 
The Director determined that the Petitioner has participated as a judge of the work of others in her 
field and has authored scholarly articles but has not demonstrated contributions of major significance 
or that she has performed a leading or critical role. Upon de novo review, we agree that the Petitioner 
established the first two criteria. However, we disagree with the Director regarding their determination 
on the original contributions criterion and conclude that the Petitioner did establish this criterion. 
To meet this criterion, a petitioner must submit"[ e ]vidence 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). USCTS should first determine whether a noncitizen has made original contributions in 
their field. 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(8), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f­
chapter-2. If so, the Agency should then determine whether any are of "major significance to the 
field." Id. 
Evidence of significant contributions can include published research that has provoked widespread 
commentary on its importance from others in the field, or documentation that research generated a 
high number of citations relative to others' work in the field. Id. When determining whether original 
contributions have major significance, detailed letters from experts in the field explaining the nature 
and significance of the contributions may provide valuable context, especially if accompanied by 
corroborating documentation. Id. 
At the time of the petition's filing, the Petitioner established her authorship of roughly 20 articles in 
peer-reviewed, scientific journals in the field. The Petitioner's articles have generated a significant 
number of citations in the field. 
2 
The Petitioner submitted detailed letters from several researchers in her field detailing the nature and 
impact of her work. The letters describe several of the Petitioner's contributions as significant. For 
example, the letter from Dr. I I describes the impact of the Petitioner's work increasing 
crop sustainability in the face of climate change. The letter states that the Petitioner has "identified 
biomolecules ... with key role[s] in inducing seed-priming led improved germination performance and 
seedling tolerance to environmental stresses." Additionally, the Petitioner "has published two pioneer 
studies on post-thaw recovery using onions and spinach leaves as the model systems" and her 
subsequent "findings opened the door to improved plant cold hardiness from a new perspective and 
provided new directions." 
Moreover, the letter from Dr. I Idetails the Petitioner's innovations in developing "a 
computation pipeline that performs joint statistical analysis to integrate two high throughput biological 
datasets" which "provides a wholistic view of the metabolome-transcriptome associations and reveals 
many novel findings that are often missed by the tradition approach." Dr.I I details that her 
work "is truly a unique and novel contribution to biological research, and has direct applications in 
plant and animal breeding, as it identifies novel gene functions ... that are critical for improving 
agricultural productivity." Dr. letter also confirms that the "methodology developed 
in her work can also be used to study many other metabolic pathways." 
Therefore, we withdraw the Director's finding and determine that the Petitioner has established she 
made original contributions of major significance in her field. 1 
As such, the Petitioner has established she meets three criteria and has satisfied part one of the two­
step adjudicative process described in Kazarian. Accordingly, we will withdraw the Director's 
decision. As noted above, where a petitioner demonstrates that they meet these initial evidentiary 
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, 596 
F.3d at 1115; section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3). We will therefore remand 
the matter for the Director to make the final merits determination in the first instance. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
1 The Petitioner additionally contends that she performed in a leading or critical role for a distinguished organization. 
However, as she has already earned a final merits determination by meeting a requisite third evidentiary requirement, we 
reserve the issue. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 ( 1976) (stating that agencies need not make "purely advisory 
findings" on issues unnecessary to their decisions). 
3