remanded EB-1A Case: Cancer Biology Research

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JULY 25, 2024 In Re: 28792601 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a cancer biology 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. 
§ l l 53(b)(1 )(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 had satisfied at least three of ten initial evidentiary criteria, as required. 
The matter is now before us on appeal under 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 immigrant visas available to individuals with 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. These individuals must 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 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 their achievements in the field through a one-time 
achievement in the form of a major, internationally recognized award. Or the petitioner can submit 
evidence 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. If those standards 
do not readily apply to the individual's occupation, then the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows 
the submission of comparable evidence. 
Once a petitioner has met the initial evidence requirements, the next step is a final merits 
determination, in which we 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. 20 I 0) ( 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); Rijalv. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner earned a doctorate in biotechnology in his native India in 2009, and subsequently 
received postdoctoral training in one- to two-year positions at various institutions in India and the 
United States. Most recently, in May 2022, the Petitioner began working as a research scientist at 
I ITexas. He left the United States shortly after the petition was denied 
in April 2023. 
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 Petitioner claimed to have satisfied three of these criteria, summarized below: 
• (iv), Participation as a judge of the work of others; 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance; and 
• (vi), Authorship of scholarly articles. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner met only one criterion, pertaining to his authorship of 
scholarly articles. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he also meets the other two claimed criteria. 
Upon review of the record, we conclude that the Petitioner has satisfied three initial criteria. We will 
discuss the remaining two claimed criteria below. 
Evidence ofthe alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge ofthe 
work of others in the same or an allied field of specification for which classification is 
sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The Petitioner stated that his peer review of manuscripts for scholarly journals satisfies the requirements 
of this criterion. The Director acknowledged the Petitioner's submission of "email correspondence 
thanking the petitioner for his peer review of articles," but the Director concluded that "the record fails to 
sufficiently demonstrate that the petitioner was, in fact, invited or otherwise appointed in an official 
capacity, to judge the work of others." 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not adequately explain how the Petitioner's evidence 
is insufficient. We agree with the Petitioner that the evidence of record is sufficient to meet the regulatory 
requirements. The USCIS Policy Manual specifies that "[p]Jeer reviewing for a scholarly journal" 
2 
qualifies as judging the work of others, as long as the petitioner submits "proof that the review was 
actually completed." See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(l), https://www.uscis.gov/policy­
manual. The Petitioner has submitted evidence to that effect, in the form of email messages both soliciting 
the Petitioner's involvement and, later, thanking him for submitting completed reviews. 
Whether a petitioner's involvement in peer review also indicates sustained national or international 
acclaim is a separate question, to be addressed in the final merits determination on remand. 
Evidence ofthe alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions ofmajor sign[ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
Under this criterion, the Petitioner submitted several letters and documentation of citations of his 
published work. 
The submitted letters are not wholly persuasive by themselves. Detailed letters from experts in the field 
explaining the nature and significance of the person's contribution may provide valuable context for 
evaluating the claimed original contributions of major significance, particularly when the record includes 
documentation corroborating the claimed significance. Submitted letters should specifically describe the 
person's contribution and its significance to the field and should also set forth the basis of the writer's 
knowledge and expertise. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(l). 
Here, researchers at various universities state that the Petitioner's work is important to cancer research, 
but while the letters summarize some of the Petitioner's published work, they do so in highly technical 
language that sheds little light on its major significance. Establishing that a particular article or research 
finding is useful is not the same as establishing its major significance in the field. 
But the Petitioner has not relied solely on such letters. Documentation that a person's published work 
has been highly cited relative to others' work in that field may be probative of the significance of the 
person's contributions to the field of endeavor. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at 
F.2(B)(l). Here, the Petitioner submitted a Google Scholar printout showing over 1,100 citations of his 
published work, with three articles cited more than 100 times each over a span of seven to fourteen years. 
The Petitioner also submitted statistics which appear to show that some of his most-cited articles are in 
the uppermost percentiles. There is some degree of ambiguity in the evidence, because the Petitioner 
used Clarivate Analytics percentiles for the category of "Clinical Medicine," but the submitted journal 
rankings from Google Scholar are in other categories, mostly "Life Sciences & Earth Sciences," that have 
higher baseline citation rates. The Petitioner did not establish that Clarivate Analytics considers his 
articles, or the journals that carried them, to be in the category of "Clinical Medicine." 
Nevertheless, on balance, the evidence cumulatively appears to be sufficient to meet the criterion's 
requirements, and we therefore withdraw the Director's contrary determination. 
Because the Petitioner submitted the required evidence to meet three initial criteria, the next step is to 
evaluate whether he has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, his sustained national or 
international acclaim and that he is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, 
whose achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. A final 
3 
merits determination involves analyzing an individual'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. 
In this proceeding, the Director did not undertake a final merits determination, and therefore there are 
no related conclusions for us to review. Therefore, we will remand the matter so that the Director can 
undertake in the first instance a final merits determination. Such a determination is based on the entire 
record. For example, an individual may at certain points be involved in highly significant research, 
but not attain the individual acclaim that would place the individual in the small percentage at the top 
of the field. 
Objectively meeting the regulatory criteria in the first step alone does not establish that 
the person in fact meets the requirements for classification as a person with 
extraordinary ability. For example: 
• Participating in the judging of the work of others in the same or an allied field of 
specialization alone, regardless of the circumstances, should satisfy the regulatory 
criteria in the first step of the analysis. However, the second step requires the 
officer to evaluate the person's participation to determine whether it was indicative 
of the person being one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of 
the field of endeavor and enjoying sustained national or international acclaim. 
• Publishing scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media alone, regardless of the caliber, should satisfy the regulatory criteria 
in the first step of the analysis. However, the second step requires the officer to 
evaluate the person's publications to determine whether they were indicative of the 
person being one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field 
of endeavor and enjoying sustained national or international acclaim. 
See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(l). 
The portion of the USCIS Policy Manual dealing with final merits determinations states that we should 
give some weight to publication of a person's articles in "particularly highly-ranked journals," but another 
consideration is whether "the person is the most significant contributor to the published article, a senior 
author, or the sole author of the article." See id. at F.2(B)(2). Regarding citation totals, the USCIS Policy 
Manual states: 
The petitioner [may] provide[] evidence demonstrating that the total rate of citations to 
the person's body of published work is high relative to others in the field, such as the 
person has a high h-index for the field. Depending on the field and the comparative data 
the petitioner provides, such evidence may indicate a person's high overall standing for 
the purpose of demonstrating that the person is among the small percentage at the top of 
the field. 
4 
Id. The Petitioner submitted a Google Scholar printout showing an h-index of 17 at the time of filing, 
meaning that 17 of his articles had each been cited 17 or more times. The Director should consider 
whether the Petitioner submitted adequate evidence to establish that his h-index is high relative to others 
in the field. 
Letters of support should be corroborated by documentary evidence in the record. The letters should 
explain in specific terms why the witnesses believe a petitioner to be of the caliber of a person with 
extraordinary ability. Letters that merely make general and expansive statements regarding a 
petitioner and their accomplishments are generally not persuasive. See id. at F.2(B)(3). 
Regarding all these issues, the burden of proof remains on the Petitioner to adequately support his 
claims. Statements in a brief, motion, or Notice of Appeal are not evidence and thus are not entitled to 
any evidentiary weight. Matter ofS-M-, 22 I&N Dec. 49, 51 (BIA 1998). 
III. CONCLUSION 
By a preponderance of the evidence, the Petitioner has satisfied three initial evidentiary criteria. We 
will remand the matter to the Director for a final merits determination. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
5