remanded EB-1A Case: Applied Physics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 12011221 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 30, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a postdoctoral research fellow , seeks 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. The Director concluded that, 
although the record established that the Petitioner satisfied the initial evidentiary requirements for this 
classification, it did not establish, as required, that he has sustained national or international acclaim 
and is an individual in that small percentage at the very top of the field. The matter is now before us 
on appeal. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will withdraw the Director's 
decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent with our discussion below. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l) 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 
international recognition of his or her achievements in the field through 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 sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten criteria 
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); 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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is employed as al I Postdoctoral Fellow atl I University where he conducts 
research on the synthesis o~ ~ I materials for next- eneration l"------'---,------' 
I ~evices. He received his doctorate degree in applied physics from~---~University 
in 2018. 
Because the Petitioner 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). The Petitioner claimed to meet three criteria and the Director concluded 
that he satisfied all three, relating to judging the work of others, original contributions of major 
significance in his field, and authorship of scholarly articles in professional publications. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv), (v) and (vi). 
Because the Petitioner met three of the regulatory criteria, the Director proceeded to a final merits 
determination. In a final merits determination, the Director must analyze all of a petitioner's 
accomplishments and weigh the totality of the evidence to determine if their successes are sufficient 
to demonstrate that they have extraordinary ability in the field of endeavor. See section 203(b){l){A)(i) 
of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20.1 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director's decision reflects that he did not consider all the 
evidence together in its totality in determining whether the Petitioner is eligible for the benefit sought. 
Specifically, the Petitioner asserts that the Director repeatedly disregarded favorable evidence of his 
accomplishments and did not examine each piece of evidence for its relevance, probative value and 
1 See also USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 
Petitions; Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADll-14 4 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/po I icymanual/HTM L/Po I icyManual. htm I. 
2 
credibility. We agree with that assertion as the final merits determination section of the decision 
contains few references to the submitted evidence. For example, although the Director determined 
that the Petitioner satisfied the original contributions criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), evidence 
related to the Petitioner's contributions in his field is not mentioned or weighed in the final merits 
discussion. This evidence included multiple expert opinion letters, evidence of awards the Petitioner 
won for his research, copies of research and review articles that cite his research, media coverage of 
his publications and other relevant documentation. 
In referencing the judging criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), the decision includes only a general 
reference to the Petitioner's peer review experience, noting that he did not establish that his activities 
in this regard exceed those of other researchers in his field. However the Director did not address the 
Petitioner's specific claims and evidence showing how his peer review activities compare to others in 
the field, both in terms of the number of journals for which he has served as a reviewer, and the total 
number of reviews he has conducted. The Director also emphasized that the Petitioner's peer review 
experience could not demonstrate "sustained acclaim" because most of his activities had taken place 
between 2016 and 2019. The Petitioner, as noted, is a postdoctoral fellow who completed his Ph.D. 
in 2018. There is no definitive timeframe on what constitutes "sustained," and a petitioner may be 
early in his or her career and still show sustained acclaim.2 
Finally, in evaluating evidence of the Petitioner's scholarly articles, the Director excluded from 
consideration all publications except for those in which he was listed as the first author but stated no 
basis for doing so. The record reflects that the Petitioner submitted objective evidence relating to his 
publication rates and his citation history in comparison to others active during the same time period, 
as well as information regarding the impact factors of journals in which he was published. The 
Director did not discuss any of this relevant evidence but instead determined that the Petitioner's 
citation history did not compare favorably to that of two of the experts who had provided reference 
letters on his behalf, both senior professors with decades of experience. It was not appropriate for the 
Director to limit his final merits review of this criterion to an aggregate comparison of the Petitioner's 
publication record to that of his referees. 
Because the Director disregarded much of the Petitioner's evidence in the final merits determination, 
the decision did not sufficiently address why the Petitioner has not demonstrated that he qualifies as 
an individual of extraordinary ability under section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act. An officer must fully 
explain the reasons for denying a visa petition in order to allow a petitioner a fair opportunity to contest 
the decision and to allow us an opportunity for meaningful appellate review. See 8 C.F.R. § 
103.3(a)(1)(i); see also Matter of M-P-, 20 l&N Dec. 786 (BIA 1994) (finding that a decision must 
fully explain the reasons for denying a motion to allow the respondent a meaningful opportunity to 
challenge the determination on appeal). 
At this time, we take no position as to the Petitioner's eligibility for the requested classification. 
Rather, we remand the matter for the Director to review the record in light of the decision's 
deficiencies as outlined above and enter a new decision. As the Director already determined that the 
Petitioner satisfied at least three criteria, the new decision should include an analysis of the totality of 
the record in evaluating whether the Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, 
2 USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra at 14. 
3 
his sustained national or international acclaim and whether the record demonstrates that he is one of 
the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a 
new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
4