remanded EB-1A Case: Biostatistics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 6, 2024 In Re: 32867353 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a biostatistician researcher, 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, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that he had received a one-time achievement (a major, internationally recognized award) or 
that he satisfied at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria, as required for the requested 
classification. 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 of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo '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 )( 1 )(A) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability if: 
(i) the [ noncitizen] 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 [noncitizen] seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the [noncitizen'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 recognition 
of their achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally 
recognized award). If the petitioner does not submit this evidence, then they 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 1 115 (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 has a Ph.D. in biostatistics and is currently employed withl Iwhere 
he designs clinical studies of chronic pain. He states that he is "one of the few leading statistical 
genetics experts in biostatistics, . .. especially well-known for his work in identifying rare disease 
variants, COVID-19 testing procedures, and the health impacts of environmental pollutants." He also 
developed the method of statistical genetic analysis. He seeks to continue his work as 
a senior advisor in statistics in the United States. Since he does not claim to have a one-time 
achievement, he must submit evidence meeting at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
The Petitioner initially claimed that he met three of these criteria: 
• (iv), Participating as a judge of the work of others in the field; 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance; and 
• (vi), Authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), notifying the Petitioner that the evidence in the 
record did not demonstrate that he met any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The Director 
allowed the Petitioner an opportunity to submit additional evidence to demonstrate that he satisfied at 
least one more of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted additional evidence asserting that he meets the 
following criteria: 
• (iv), Participating as a judge of the work of others in the field; 
2 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance; 
• (vi), Authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media; 
• (viii), Performing in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that 
have a distinguished reputation; and 
• (ix), Commanded a high salary, or other significantly high remuneration for services, 
in relation to others in the field. 
In denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner demonstrated that he met only two 
of the claimed criteria. Specifically, the Director concluded that the Petitioner met the criteria at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), participating as a judge of the work of others, and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), 
authorship of scholarly articles. The record supports the Director's determination that the Petitioner 
satisfied these two criteria. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner claimed but did not submit sufficient evidence establishing 
that he has made original contributions of major significance in the field; that he has performed in a 
leading or critical role for organizations with a distinguished reputation; and that he has commanded 
a high salary or other significantly high remuneration in relation to others in the field. See 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(v), (viii), (ix). The Director concluded that, because the Petitioner did not establish that 
he met at least three of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), it was not necessary to conduct a final 
merits determination to determine whether the Petitioner has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his achievements have been recognized indicating that he is one of that small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the previously submitted evidence was sufficient to establish 
that he satisfied these additional criteria. He also submits additional evidence in support of his claims. 
After reviewing the evidence in the record, we conclude that the Petitioner has demonstrated that he 
satisfies at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, and met the first step in the required 
analysis. 
Contrary to the Director's decision, we find sufficient evidence of the Petitioner'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). Under this criterion, USCIS first determines whether a petitioner has made 
original contributions in their field. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.(2) App'x , 
www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. If so, the Agency then considers the contributions' significance. Id. 
Contributions do not necessarily have major significance just because they are original. Id. A 
petitioner must submit evidence of their importance, such as their generation of widespread 
commentary, notice from others working in the field, or citations. Id. 
In both the RFE and the decision, the Director appeared to acknowledge the Petitioner's original 
scientific contributions, stating, "While your research may show you have novel or original 
contributions, the record does not establish that your research has ascended to major significance." 
However, the Director contradicts this statement in the decision, stating, "You did not submit sufficient 
independent, objective evidence that your contributions are 'original' and have significantly 
influenced the field." 
3 
The Petitioner states that his development of the tools and other 
methodologies for data analysis are original contributions of major significance to the field of 
biostatistics. He asserts that use of his methodologies has led to "discoveries related to polygenic risk 
scores, COVID-19 testing procedures, and the identification of genes and rare variants." 
The record establishes the Petitioner's original contributions to the field. Evidence in the record 
demonstrates that the Petitioner's methodologies have been used in data analysis of studies involving 
human ovarian aging, trait and disease heritability, measuring the risk of harm from enviromnental 
pollutants, and COVID-19 data. 
The Director acknowledged letters from other researchers pra1smg the Petitioner's skillset and 
research. However, the Director detennined that the letters did not demonstrate that the Petitioner's 
contributions are both original and of major significance in the field. The Director stated that the 
record did not include corroborating documentary evidence to establish the major significance of the 
Petitioner's work. The Director further stated, "[L]etters, though not without weight, cannot form the 
cornerstone of a successful claim of extraordinary ability." 
The Director overlooked evidence of the significance of the Petitioner's original contributions. The 
Petitioner submitted documentation demonstrating that, from 2017 to 2024, he ranked in the 99.96% 
citation percentile in the field of biostatistics. Additionally, five of the Petitioner's scholarly articles 
presenting his methodologies rank in the top 10% of most-cited articles in the field. Two of the five 
articles rank in the top 1 %. This and other evidence demonstrates that the Petitioner's original research 
has significance. 
Letters from other researchers indicate that the imp01tance of the Petitioner's original research is 
substantial. A professor and researcher with __________ praised the Petitioner's research 
on data analysis using the I lmethod. The professor stated that the Petitioner's ! I I Imethod is "a critical contribution to biobank data analysis, improving the ability of researchers 
everywhere to analyze the genetic factors involved in a myriad of diseases and health conditions." An 
associate professor and researcher at _____________ _, states that he used the 
Petitioner's I lmethod of data analysis in his study on complex genetic traits in East Asian and 
European populations. Describing the major significance of the Petitioner's work, he stated, "His 
work has played an important role in increasing not only the accuracy, but also the equity, of genetic 
research." 
Therefore, we conclude that the Petitioner has sufficiently demonstrated original scientific 
contributions of major significance to the field of biostatistics. With meeting this additional criterion, 
the Petitioner satisfied part one of this two-step adjudicative process described in Kazarian and has 
overcome the basis for the denial of his petition. Accordingly, we will withdraw the Director's 
decision. Because the Petitioner has met the initial evidence requirements of at least three criteria, it 
is unnecessary to discuss any additional eligibility claims relating to the regulatory provisions at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). However, granting the third initial criterion does not suffice to establish 
eligibility for the classification the Petitioner seeks or establish that the record supports the approval of 
the petition. 
4 
USCIS must now determine whether the record establishes sustained national or international acclaim 
and recognized achievements sufficient to place the Petitioner among the small percentage at the very 
top of his field. 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. The Director did not reach that finding, and we decline to make the final merits 
determination in the first instance. We will therefore remand the matter. On remand, the Director 
should evaluate the evidence and consider the petition in its entirety, including the evidence submitted 
on appeal, to make a final merits determination. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The 
Petitioner met the preliminary evidentiary requirements of the requested immigrant visa category. 
USCIS must now determine whether he has demonstrated extraordinary ability in his field. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
5