remanded EB-1A Case: Neurology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
InRe : 18315172 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEPT. 9, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a researcher in the field of neurology, 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 that the Petitioner had satisfied at least three of ten initial evidentiary criteria, as required . 
The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
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 entry of a new decision consistent with our discussion below. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(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, provided that the individual seeks to enter the United States to continue 
work in the area of extraordinary ability, and the individual'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 that 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 articles). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner to submit 
comparable evidence if they are able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(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 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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner earned a Ph.D. in neurobiology au I University, China, in 2010. Some of her doctoral 
studies also took place at the University ofi I. Following an associate professorship, also 
atl I the Petitioner entered the United States in May 2019 as a J-1 nonimmigrant exchange visitor to 
work as a research scholar atc=J 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or shown that she received a major, internationally recognized 
award, she must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)­
(x). The Petitioner claims to have satisfied three of these criteria, relating to participation as a judge 
of the work of others; original contributions of major significance; and authorship of scholarly articles. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner met the criteria relating to judging and authorship of articles. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that she meets all three claimed criteria, and that the Director therefore 
should have proceeded to a final merits determination. 
Upon review of the record, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has satisfied the criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), relating to original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. The Petitioner asserts that she satisfies this criterion 
because she has made several important discoveries in her field, described in highly-cited scholarly 
articles. In denying the petition, the Director acknowledged the citation of the Petitioner's work, but 
concluded that the Petitioner did not show "the reason the citations are notable or the impact the 'notable' 
citations have had on the field as a whole." The Director also acknowledged the Petitioner's submission 
of reference letters, but concluded that these letters are not "preexisting, independent, and objective 
evidence" of the significance of the Petitioner's work. As explained below, we disagree with the 
Director's conclusions, to some extent. 
At the time the Petitioner filed the petition, the Google Scholar database showed over 1000 citations of 
her published articles, with four articles having been cited over 100 times each. The U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) Policy Manual states "a goodly number" of such citations "may be 
probative of the significance of the person's contributions to the field of endeavor." 1 Hundreds more 
1 6 USC1S Policy Manual F.2 (Appendix), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. 
2 
citations have appeared more recently. These newest citations do not establish eligibility at the time of 
filing, but they do speak to the field's ongoing reliance on the cited works. 
The Petitioner has, therefore, overcome the only stated ground for denial of the petition. Nevertheless, 
the record does not support approval of the petition. Granting the third initial criterion does not suffice 
to establish eligibility for the classification the Petitioner seeks. The Director must undertake a final 
merits determination to analyze the Petitioner's accomplishments and weigh the totality of the evidence 
to determine if they establish extraordinary ability in the Petitioner's 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. 2 
When considering the evidence submitted to show the Petitioner's acclaim and recognition in the field, 
the Director must consider whether or not the record corroborates assertions both from the Petitioner and 
in letters written specifically to support the petition. For example, an associate editor of the Journal of 
Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism claims "we only invite extraordinary and top scientists to review our 
manuscripts." An associate editor of CNS Neuroscience & Therapeutics claims the journal invited the 
Petitioner to review manuscripts "due to her extraordinary research ability and her outstanding 
reputation." The record lacks objective documentary support for these claims. 
Some messages inviting the Petitioner to review manuscripts include this passage: "If you are unable to 
find the time to referee for us we would value your recommendation of one of your colleagues or of any 
expert in the field." There is no reference to any credentials or level of achievement apart from subject 
matter expertise. Without objective evidence to show that the journal publishers limit their peer review 
opportunities to recognized and acclaimed researchers, the Petitioner's peer review work does not 
establish the acclaim and recognition required for the classification she seeks. 
Moreover, a curriculum vitae in the record shows that the Petitioner's doctoral advisor is an "editorial 
board member for 13 professional journals," including both of the journals named above. That advisor 
signed several of the peer review invitations from CNS Neuroscience & Therapeutics. This close 
involvement by the Petitioner's mentor appears to have direct and significant consequences regarding 
claims as to how the Petitioner came to be a peer reviewer for those journals. The Director must keep 
such factors in mind when weighing the record for the final merits determination. 
III. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has overcome the only stated ground for denial, we remand this proceeding so 
that the Director can render a final merits determination in keeping with the Kazarian framework. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a 
new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
2 See also 6 USC1S Policy Manual F.2(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual (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 for the immigrant classification). 
3