remanded EB-1A Case: Bioinformatics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 24533939 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 12, 2023 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a bioinformatics research scientist, 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner met the initial evidence requirements for this classification by establishing 
her receipt of a major, internationally recognized award or by meeting at least three of the ten 
evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The matter is now before us on appeal. 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 Christa's, Inc., 26 I&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)(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. 
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, the 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) (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 
The record reflects that the Petitioner is an experienced research scientist in the field ofbioinformatics. 
She has a bachelor's degree in electrical and computer engineering from I I University of 
Science and Technology and completed her graduate studies at University in China, where she 
received her Ph.D. in control science and engineering in 2006. The Petitioner indicates that she has 
held post-doctoral research positions in bioinformatics at Thel I Universit of 
University of Technology of ______ _.University, and University At the 
time of filing, she was employed as a bioinformatics analyst at the University of _ College of 
I I The Petitioner states that she intends to continue her research work in the bioinformatics 
field in the United States. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that she has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, she must show that she satisfies at least three of the regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Petitioner claimed she could satisfy the following criteria: 
• (iv), Judging the work of others in the same or allied field of specialization; 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance; and 
• (vi), Authorship of scholarly articles in her field. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner established that she has published scholarly articles in 
"Cell, Stem Cell, Nature Communications and Advanced Science" and therefore met the plain 
language of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). The Director also determined that the Petitioner 
satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) based on evidence that she peer-reviewed 
manuscripts submitted for publication in several scientific journals. However, the Director concluded 
2 
that the evidence did not establish that she had made original contributions of major significance in 
her field and denied the petition without reaching a final merits determination. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director's decision contains fundamental errors of fact which 
suggest that the denial was not based on a review of all evidence she submitted in support of her 
petition and may in fact have involved review of an unrelated petition. Specifically, she notes that 
although the Director determined that she met the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) based on her 
authorship of scholarly articles, the decision indicates that she published in Cell, Stem Cell, and 
Advanced Science. She emphasizes that she neither claimed nor submitted evidence that she published 
in these journals. The Petitioner also notes that the Director's discussion of the original contributions 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) contains a reference to "additional letters" submitted in response to 
a request for evidence (RFE) but asserts that she did not provide this evidence in response to an RFE. 
Finally, the Petitioner emphasizes that the decision primarily refers to her by "he/him/his" pronouns, 
but the petition and supporting evidence clearly indicate that female pronouns are appropriate. 
After reviewing the record in its totality, the record supports the Petitioner's assertion that the 
Director's decision contains factual errors, including references to evidence that was not submitted in 
support of this petition. In addition, as discussed further below, the Director's discussion of the 
original contributions criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) is conclusory and does not specifically 
address the Petitioner's claims or the evidence submitted in support of the criterion. 
An officer must fully explain the reasons for denying a visa petition 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)(l)(i); see also Matter of M-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). Because the Director's decision contains 
factual errors and does not provide a sufficient explanation of the reasons for denial with respect to 
the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), we will withdraw that decision and remand for further review 
and entry of a new decision, consistent with our discussion below. 
Despite the referenced factual errors, the record supports a determination that the Petitioner has 
published scholarly articles in scientific journals such as Nature Communications and the Journal of 
the National Academy of Sciences, and that she has judged the work of others in her field by peer 
reviewing manuscripts submitted to journals for publication. Therefore, the record demonstrates that 
she satisfies the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi). 
Regarding the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), the Petitioner asserts on appeal that the Director's 
decision did not address the evidence she submitted with any specificity and instead summarily 
concluded that the evidence was insufficient. We agree with the Petitioner's assertion that it is difficult 
to discern based on the Director's decision what specific evidence was considered in reaching this 
determination. As the decision only vaguely referenced "letters" in the analysis of this criterion, 
without specifically identifying the evidence considered, the Director should re-examine the 
Petitioner's claims and all evidence submitted in support of those claims when evaluating this criterion 
on remand. In addition to detailed letters from both colleagues and independent experts in her field, 
the Petitioner's evidence in support of the original contributions criterion included the Petitioner's 
citation record from Google Scholar, evidence related to the journals that published her work and their 
3 
respective rankings and impact factors, documentation of "notable citations" intended to demonstrate 
how her research contributions have impacted the field, information regarding the governmental 
entities that have funded her previous work, and a supporting letter that contains a 13-page explanation 
of her specific contributions in the field. 
Finally, in addition to the issues addressed above, the record before us on appeal appears to be 
incomplete. The record reflects that the Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) on April 11, 
2022. The decision indicates that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) received a 
response to the RFE on July 5, 2022 that included "a letter, an updated detailed citation record, 
additional support letters, and a more detailed account of the beneficiary's published work." While 
USCIS systems indicate receipt of an RFE response on that date, the RFE response has not been 
incorporated into the record. We also note that the Petitioner states on appeal that she did not submit 
"additional support letters" in response to an RFE. It is the responsibility of the Director to ensure 
that the record is complete and contains all evidence that has been submitted by the Petitioner or 
considered by USCIS in reaching its decision. See, e.g., Matter of Gibson, 16 I&N Dec. 58, 59 (BIA 
1976); 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
B. Final Merits Determination 
For the reasons discussed above, the matter is being remanded to the Director to re-evaluate the 
previously submitted evidence and to ensure that the record of proceedings is complete and includes 
any response the Petitioner submitted in response to the Director's RFE. If after review the Director 
determines that the Petitioner satisfies at least three criteria, the decision should include an analysis of 
the totality of the record evaluating whether the Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of 
the evidence, her sustained national or international acclaim and whether the record demonstrates 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 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 Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
4