remanded EB-1A Case: Medical Research

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 16226128 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: May 13, 2021 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a medical 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Petitioner satisfies at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for 
this classification. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C . § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will withdraw the Director's 
decision and remand the matter for the entry of a new decision consistent with the following analysis. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1) 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 can demonstrate 
international recognition of his or her 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 he 
or she 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 aiiicles). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner to submit 
comparable material if he or she is able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 2 04. 5 (h )(3 )(i)-( x) do not readily apply to the individual's occupation. 
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 demonsti·ates that the individual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCJS, 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. 20l3);Rijalv. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a medical researcher who indicates that he is currently employed as a Chief Research 
Fellow a...__ ____________________ -,--_ ___. The record reflects that the 
Petitioner previously served as Head of the Department of Medical History at~------~ 
Medical University from 2010 until 2017. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that he has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, he must satisfy at least three of the ten alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Here, the Petitioner initially claimed to meet six of these criteria, 
summarized below: 
• (iii), Published material in professional or major media; 
• (iv), Participation as a judge of the work of others; 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance; 
• (vi), Authorship of scholarly articles; 
• (vii), Display of his work at artistic exhibitions or showcases; and 
• (viii), Leading or critical roles for organizations with a distinguished reputation. 
Subsequently, the Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), informing the Petitioner, in part, that 
he satisfied one of the initial evidentiary criteria, relating to authorship of scholarly articles at 8 C.F.R 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). Specifically, the Director stated: "The evidence demonstrates that the beneficiary 
has published scholarly material in a professional journal. As such the submitted evidence meets this 
criterion." In addition, the Director notified the Petitioner that he may submit additional evidence to 
fulfill the other five claimed criteria. 
2 
In the Director's decision denying the petition, he determined that the Petitioner met the criterion 
relating to leading or critical roles for organizations with a distinguished reputation, at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5 (h )(3 )(viii). Further, the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not satisfy the criteria relating 
to published materials, judging, original contributions, and display at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), (iv), 
(v) and (vii). Although he indicated in the RFE that the Petitioner satisfied the scholarly articles 
criterion, the Director's decision does not mention this criterion and reaches no final determination as 
to whether it was satisfied. 
Further, the Director's decision lacks a detailed analysis of the evidence submitted in support of the 
petition with respect to two of the other criteria, and does not adequately address the evidence the 
Petitioner submitted in response to a request for evidence (RFE). An officer must fully explain the 
reasons for denying a visa petition in order to allow a petitioner a fair oppmiunity to contest the 
decision and to allow us an opportunity for meaningful appellate review. See 8 C.F.R. § 103 .3 ( a )(1 )(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). 
As we do not find that the record as presently constituted establishes the Petitioner's eligibility for the 
benefit sought, we cannot sustain the appeal; however, we will withdraw the Director's decision and 
remand the matter for further review and entry of a new decision consistent with our discussion below. 
As noted, the Director already determined that that the Petitioner satisfied the criterion related to his 
performance in leading or critical roles at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). We will remand the matter, in 
paii, so that the Director can issue a new decision that includes a dete1mination with respect to the 
scholarly articles criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), which, as noted, was mentioned in the RFE but 
absent from the final decision. 
In addition, although the decision contains a brief analysis for four additional criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), the Director's evaluation of the judging and original contributions criteria includes 
few or no references to the specific evidence considered and does not adequately inform the Petitioner 
why his evidence was deemed insufficient to satisfy his burden of proof with respect to these criteria. 
With respect to the judging criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), the Director listed some of the 
evidence submitted, stated the regulatory requirements, and concluded, without providing any analysis 
or discussion of the listed evidence, that the Petitioner did not meet satisfy the criterion. Similarly, the 
Director's discussion of the evidence submitted in support of the original contributions criterion at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) is limited to a briefreference to one supporting letter and a patent, and does not 
take into account all of the claims and evidence the Petitioner submitted in support of this criterion. As 
the matter will be remanded to the Director, he is instructed to re-examine the evidence submitted in 
support of these two criteria, including the Petitioner's accompanying letters explaining how the 
evidence supports his eligibility. 
Finally, the record reflects that the Petitionerrequested that evidence he submitted to satisfy the display 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) be considered as comparable evidence pursuant to 8 C.F.R 
§ 2 04. S(h )(4 ). The Director acknowledged the evidence provided but did address the Petitioner's request 
3 
that such evidence should be accepted under the comparable evidence regulation. As the matter will be 
remanded to the Director, he should address this request in the new decision. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
For the reasons discussed above, the matter is being remanded to the Director to re-evaluate the 
evidence submitted under the initial evidentiary criteria. If after review the Director determines that 
the Petitioner satisfies at least three criteria, his decision should include an analysis of the totality of 
the record evaluating whether he has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, his sustained 
national or international acclaim and whether the record demonstrates that he is one of the small 
percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, and that his 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. 1 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entty of a 
new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
1 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1,EvaluationofEvidenceSubmittedwith Ce1tainFormI-l 40Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicators Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJ 1-14 4 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/H1MUPolicyManual.html (stating that USCIS officers should then evaluate the 
evidence together when considering the petition in its entirety to determine if the petitioner has established by a 
preponderance of the evidence the required high level of expertise of the immigrant classification). 
4