remanded EB-1A Case: Dermatology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 24, 2025 InRe: 36317381 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a researcher in the field of dermatology, 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 )(1 )(A). This first preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who 
can demonstrate their extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics 
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 the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Petitioner meets at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria set forth in 
the implementing regulations for this classification. The Director further determined the Petitioner 
did not meet her burden to demonstrate that she is coming to the United States to continue work in her 
area of extraordinary ability. 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 afChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter a/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 
An individual is eligible for the extraordinary ability immigrant classification under section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act 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 country to continue working in the area of extraordinary ability; and their entry into the United 
States would substantially benefit the country. 
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 provide evidence of a 
one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If a petitioner does not 
submit this evidence, then they must provide documentation 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 demonstrates that they meet 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 they are 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 Amin v. Mayorkas, 24 F.4th 383, 391 (5th Cir. 2022) 
(finding USCIS' two-step analysis of extraordinary ability "consistent with the governing statute and 
regulation"). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The record reflects that the Petitioner was employed as a research fellow in the dermatology field 
when the petition was filed and shortly thereafter accepted an offer to work as an assistant professor 
and clinical dermatologist for the 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that she has received a 
major, internationally recognized award, she must demonstrate that she satisfies at least three of the 
alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). She claims that she meets five of the ten 
criteria, including those related to memberships in associations that require outstanding achievements, 
judging the work of others in her field, original contributions of major significance, authorship of 
scholarly articles, and commanding a high salary. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), (iv)-(vi), and (ix). 
The Director determined that the Petitioner satisfied only two criteria. Specifically, the Director 
concluded that she has participated as a judge of the work of others in her field and authored scholarly 
articles and thus satisfied the plain language of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), 
respectively. The record supports the Director's determination that the Petitioner met these criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts the Director failed to acknowledge two of the five claimed criteria, 
emphasizing that the notice of denial does not include a discussion of the evidence she submitted in 
support of the membership and high salary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) and (ix). She further 
contends that the Director did not properly review and consider the evidence submitted in support of 
her claim that she has made original contributions of major significance in her field, under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v). She asserts the Director overlooked much of this evidence and applied improper 
standards that are not supported by the law or relevant U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS) policy. 
Upon review, we agree that the Director's decision did not adequately address three of the five claimed 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Accordingly, for the reasons discussed below, we will remand the 
matter for the entry of a new decision. 
First, the record supports the Petitioner's claim that the Director evidently overlooked the evidence 
she submitted under the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) and (ix). The Petitioner 
submitted evidence related to her membership in a professional association and her salary in response 
2 
to the Director's request for evidence (RFE). In addition, she addressed her eligibility under these 
criteria in her letter accompanying the RFE response. Based on these facts, the Director's failure to 
address the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) and (ix) in the decision was clear error. On remand, 
the Director should review the evidence relating to these criteria and determine whether that evidence 
satisfies the plain language of the regulations. 
Further, the Director's determination with respect to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) did not 
adequately address the Petitioner's specific claims and evidence. When denying a petition, the 
Director must explain in writing the specific reasons for denial. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i). This 
explanation should be sufficient to allow the Petitioner a fair opportunity to contest the decision and 
to allow us an opportunity for meaningful appellate review. Cf., Matter ofM-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 786 
(BIA 1994) (finding at a decision must fully explain the reasons for denying a motion to allow the 
respondent a meaningful opportunity to challenge the determination on appeal). Here, the Director's 
decision, which relied in significant part on templated language, did not satisfy this requirement. 
To meet the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner must submit "[e ]vidence of the 
[ noncitizen' s] original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic or business-related contributions of major 
significance in the field." In evaluating evidence submitted under this criterion, USCIS first determines 
whether a petitioner has made original contributions in their field. See generally 6 USCIS Policy 
Manual, F.2(B)(l), www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. If so, the Agency should then determine whether a 
petitioner's contributions are of "major significance." Id. 
Here, the Director acknowledged that the Petitioner's submission of evidence that included: five letters 
from experts in her field that address her research; her publication record and citation history from 
Google Scholar; copies of published research and review articles that cite to her work; information 
regarding the reputation and impact factors of the journals where her research findings have been 
published; evidence in support her claim that many of her published articles have been highly cited; 
and, other documentation intended to provide context to the nature and significance of her research 
contributions. 
Despite noting the Petitioner's submission of this evidence, the Director did not acknowledge the 
Petitioner's specific claims regarding her original contributions of major significance in her area of 
expertise. Further, the decision does not specifically address the contents of the five letters submitted 
as expert testimony in support of the Petitioner's claims. Detailed letters from experts in the field 
explaining the nature and significance of the person's contributions may provide valuable context for 
evaluating claims regarding original contributions of major significance. See generally 6 USCIS 
Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(l). Here, the Director offered an inadequate explanation as to why 
they found the letters to be lacking in probative value. 
Under USCTS policy, "documentation that [published research] 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." 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(l ). The record reflects the Petitioner 
provided evidence indicating that at least twenty of her scholarly articles ranked among the top l 0 
percent most cited in her field since their dates of publication. However, the Director did not discuss 
the Petitioner's comparative citation evidence or explain why this evidence was deemed to be 
3 
unpersuasive. In fact, the Director stated, incorrectly, that the Petitioner did not submit any evidence 
in support of her claim that her work has been highly cited relative to others. 
The Director instead concluded the record demonstrated only a "moderate" number of citations to the 
Petitioner's work and therefore reflected her performance of only "moderately valuable research." 
The Director based this determination not on the comparative citation information provided by the 
Petitioner but on an independent "review of Google Scholar." They stated that this review "indicates 
that peers in your same field have citations numbering in the thousands, much higher than your citation 
record." It is unknown what information the Director reviewed in Google Scholar as this information 
was not incorporated into the record. However, a determination of eligibility shall be based only on 
information contained in the record of proceeding which is disclosed to the petitioner. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(l6)(ii). 
While the Director is not required to provide a detailed discussion of every piece of evidence the 
Petitioner submitted, the decision here, for the reasons discussed, was not based on consideration all 
relevant evidence in the record, was based in part on information that is not in the record of proceeding, 
and did not adequately explain the specific reasons for denial. On remand, the Director is instructed 
to re-evaluate the evidence submitted under the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) and should also 
consider the Petitioner's arguments and additional evidence provided in support of the appeal. 
Finally, we withdraw the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner did not demonstrate her intent to 
continue working in the United States in her area of extraordinary ability under section 
203(b)(1 )(A)(ii) of the Act. Contrary to the Director's determination, a noncitizen seeking 
classification as an individual of extraordinary ability is not required to demonstrate that they have an 
offer of permanent employment in the United States. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). Rather, the 
Petitioner is required to show that she is coming to the United States to continue to work in her area 
of expertise by providing evidence such as a letter from a prospective employer, evidence of 
prearranged commitments such as contracts, or a statement detailing her plans. Id. Here, the record 
establishes that the Petitioner satisfied these requirements and demonstrates that she would be coming 
to the United States to continue working as a researcher and physician in the field of dermatology. 
III. CONCLUSON 
For the reasons discussed, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand this matter. On 
remand, the Director may request any additional evidence deemed warranted. If, after further review 
of the evidence relating to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), (v) and (ix), the Director determines 
that the Petitioner satisfies a third criterion, the new decision should include a final merits 
determination evaluating whether the Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, 
her sustained national or international claim, that she is one of the small percentage at the very top of 
her field of endeavor, and that her achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive 
documentation. See section 203(b )(1 )(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