remanded EB-1A Case: Medical Research

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 15, 2024 In Re: 33387561 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. Immigration and Nationality 
Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(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 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 
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 )( 1 )(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). 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2, https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-
part-f-chapter-2. 
II. ANALYSIS 
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 regulatory criteria by providing 
sufficient evidence that he judged the work of others in the field and authorship of scholarly articles 
in the field in a professional or trade publication or major media. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 
(vi). On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he also meets two other criteria, including the leading or 
critical role with a distinguished organization criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). He asserts that 
the Director erred in determining that he did not meet the plain language of these two criteria. 
As more fully discussed below, we conclude that the Petitioner has met the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(viii). Because the Petitioner has shown that he satisfies at least three criteria, we will 
remand the matter to the Director to evaluate the totality of the evidence in the context of a final merits 
determination to determine whether the Petitioner has demonstrated 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. 
Evidence that the individual has performed in a leading or critical role for 
organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(viii) 
In general, a leading role may be evidenced from the role itself, and a critical role is one in which an 
individual is responsible for the success or standing of the organization or establishment. To meet this 
criterion, the person must establish that they have performed in a leading or critical role for an 
organization, establishment, or a division or department of an organization or establishment. 
For a leading role, we look at whether the evidence establishes that the person is ( or was) a leader 
within the organization or establishment or a division or department thereof. A title, with appropriate 
matching duties, can help to establish that a role is (or was), in fact, leading. For a critical role, we 
determine whether the evidence establishes that the person has contributed in significantly important 
ways to the outcome of the organization or establishment's activities or those of a division or 
2 
department of the organization or establishment. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2, 
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
The Petitioner contended before the Director that he performed in leading or critical roles for the 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not meet this criterion 
concluding that the record lacked sufficient evidence that he held a leading role or that he had 
contributed in a significantly important way to the organization's activities or a division or department 
within the organization. Based on our de novo review of the record, we withdraw the Director's 
determination that the Petitioner did not provide evidence sufficient to meet the plain language 
requirements of this criterion. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not sufficiently consider the significance of his 
responsibilities and contributions to the while employed in the transplant 
research department. For instance, he points to the two employment verification letters submitted with 
the petition that describe in detail the Petitioner's critical role conducting necessary work for all 
clinical trials running in the clinical department. The letters also indicated that due to the Petitioner's 
published work that "grabbed the attention" of a company, the department finalized a partnership with 
that company in order to start the first clinical trial in the Untied States to evaluate the role ofl I 
in inhibiting the fibrosis of transplant organs. The testimonial letters highlight the Petitioner's critical 
role in the transplant research department at _________ a top ranked hospital in the 
United States with a distinguished reputation. 
For the foregoing reasons, we agree with the Petitioner that, more likely than not, he meets the plain 
language requirements for this criterion through performing critical roles for an entity that possesses 
a distinguished reputation, and the Director erred in concluding otherwise. We withdraw this aspect 
of the Director's decision and remand the matter for further review and entry of a new decision. 
Because the Petitioner has established his qualifications under criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), 
(vi), and (viii), on remand, the Director should conduct a final merits review of the evidence ofrecord. 
As extraordinary ability is an elite level of accomplishment whose recognition necessarily entails a 
judgement call, it cannot be established through meeting at least three of the evidentiary criteria alone. 
The final merits determination is the ultimate statutory inquiry of whether the applicant has 
extraordinary ability as demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim. Amin v. 
Mayorkas, 24 F.4th 383, at 395 (2022). The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, 
intended for the handful of individuals at the top of their respective fields. USCIS has long held that 
even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary 
ability" standard. Matter ofPrice, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). As contemplated 
by Congress, the Petitioner must demonstrate the required sustained national or international acclaim, 
consistent with a "career of acclaimed work in the field." H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); 
see also section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. 
The new decision should include an analysis of the totality of the evidence, 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 her field of endeavor, and that his 
achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. See section 
3 
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. We 
express no opinion regarding the ultimate resolution of this case on remand. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
4