remanded EB-1A Case: Biochemistry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 23372913 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 23, 2023 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a biochemist, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner met the initial evidence requirements for the classification by establishing 
the Petitioner's receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or by meeting three of the ten 
evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R . § 204.5(h)(3). The matter is now before us on appeal. 
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 this matter for the entry of a new decision 
consistent with the following analysis . 
I. LAW 
An individual is eligible for the extraordinary ability classification if they have extraordinary ability 
in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained 
national or international acclaim and their achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation; they seek to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability; and their entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States . Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. 
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 may demonstrate 
international recognition of their achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a 
major, internationally recognized award). Absent such an achievement, a petitioner must provide 
sufficient qualifying documentation demonstrating that they meet at least three of the ten criteria listed 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
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 a senior fellow and acting instructor at the University of I He is a scientist 
in the field of biochemistry; the record demonstrates that his research on protein-based materials and 
artificial hydrogen production has been published in several journals and cited by numerous 
researchers, and that his work has garnered two early-stage commercialization grants from the 
I I Research Foundation. The Petitioner plans to continue his work as a researcher and 
instructor at the University of I 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or shown that he 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 Director determined that the Petitioner met two of the three criteria he claimed to have 
satisfied: participation as a judge of others' work and authorship of scholarly articles in the field of 
biochemistry. 1 The Director concluded, however, that although the Petitioner has made original 
scientific contributions to the field of biochemistry, the record did not establish that he had made 
contributions of major significance to the field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). The Director stated 
that the recommendation letters discussing the Petitioner's work in the field lack specificity regarding 
how his achievements have affected the field as a whole or how they are being reproduced within the 
field. Further, the Director stated that the Petitioner has not established how other researchers have 
widely applied his research results. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he meets all three claimed criteria, and that the Director therefore 
should have proceeded to a final merits determination. The Petitioner's appeal includes mission 
statements from journals to support his assertion that publication in these journals demonstrates that 
his research is of major significance. The Petitioner also submits a non-precedent AAO decision 
related to the field of biochemistry that was sustained in 2010.2 The Petitioner's appeal letter provides 
an overview of evidence submitted initially and in response to a request for evidence that consisted, 
in part, of numerous letters from scientists representing universities within and outside of the United 
States. The endorsements from these individuals entailed detailed discussions of their use of the 
Petitioner's research for their own projects, as well as descriptions of references made to the 
Petitioner's work in research publications well known throughout the scientific community. The 
1 See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), (vi). 
2 Every visa adjudication applies existing law and policy to the specific facts of an individual case. Non-precedent 
decisions do not bind us in future adjudications. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c). 
2 
record included both the articles referenced and objective analysis concerning citation percentiles to 
support the Petitioner's claim of influence in several spheres of scientific study. The Petitioner states 
that the Director did not discuss any specific deficiencies with regard to documents submitted to 
demonstrate the Petitioner's contributions of major significance, and that the Director improperly 
dismissed evidence without proper explanation. 
An evaluation of whether original contributions are of major significance to the field should consider 
any probative analysis provided by experts in the field; endorsement letters that do not simply use 
hyperbolic language, but articulate the impact of an individual's contributions, may inform 
adjudication of this criterion. 3 The endorsement letters of record contain detailed information 
concerning the impact of the Petitioner's work in furthering research in treatments for cancer, diabetes, 
and migraine, as well as in the development of artificial hydrogen production using renewable sources 
to create carbon-free energy. While acknowledging the originality of the Petitioner's contributions to 
the field of biochemistry, the Director's decision did not analyze these letters in terms of how their 
content might inform an assessment of the level of significance of those contributions. The Director's 
decision also did not discuss evidence of collaborative efforts between the University of I 
and a pharmaceutical company involving use of the Petitioner's integrin binder-a novel molecule 
that he created-as a mechanism for delivering targeted therapeutic payloads to cancer cells. A letter 
from the grant program at the I I Research Foundation explains that the Petitioner was 
awarded funding to facilitate the clinical application and commercialization of his research. 
Upon review, we conclude that the Director did not adequately address the evidence of record 
regarding 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). An officer must fully explain the reasons for denying a visa 
petition to allow the 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)(l)(i); see also Matter ofM-P-, 20 I&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). Therefore, we 
will remand the matter for the entry of a new decision. 
III. CONCLUSION 
Based upon the deficiencies discussed above, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand 
the matter for further review and entry of a new decision. On remand, the Director should request any 
additional evidence deemed warranted to address whether the Petitioner has established that he has 
made original contributions of major significance to the field of biochemistry in accordance with 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). If the Director determines that the Petitioner has provided sufficient evidence 
of this criterion, the new decision should include an analysis of the totality of the record evaluating 
whether the Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, his sustained national 
or international acclaim, his status as one of the small percentage at the very top of his field of 
endeavor, and that his achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive 
documentation. 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. 
3 See generally 6 USC1S Policy Manual F.2 (Appendix), https:///www.uscis.gov/policymanual. 
3 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
4