remanded EB-1A Case: Neuroscience

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 21, 2024 In Re: 34800541 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a neuroscience researcher, seeks first preference immigrant 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 satisfied at least three of the ten required regulatory criteria listed at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 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 of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo '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 
Section 
203(b )( 1 )(A) 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 sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a 
major, internationally recognized award) or qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the 
ten categories 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 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). 
TI. ANALYSIS 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established his receipt of a major, internationally 
recognized award, he must satisfy at least three of the regulatory criteria. The Petitioner claims that 
he meets three of the regulatory criteria, namely that he has made original contributions of major 
significance, has authored scholarly articles, and has performed in a leading or critical role for a 
distinguished organization or establishment. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), (vi), (viii). 
The Director determined that the Petitioner established that he had made original contributions of 
major significance and had authored scholarly articles but had not demonstrated that he had held a 
leading or critical role. Upon de novo review, we agree that the Petitioner established the first two 
criteria. However, we disagree with the Director regarding their determination on the leading or 
critical role criterion and conclude that the Petitioner did establish this criterion. 
To meet this criterion, a petitioner must demonstrate that they had a role in a distinguished organization 
or establishment, in which the person was a leader within the organization or played a critical role by 
making a significant contribution to the organization's outcome or activities. 6 USCIS Policy Manual 
F.2(B), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-2. Being in a "[s]enior 
research position for a distinguished non-academic institution," is one example of a qualifying 
role. Id. 
The Petitioner has served as a Senior Research Fellow at the 
for several years. According to a detailed letter from Dr. the Chief of the 
Neurocircuitry of Motivation Section, in the Petitioner's time at he has conducted and led 
research projects while supervising and mentoring post-baccalaureate and postdoctoral fellows. Dr. 
I letter further discussed the Petitioner's critical role to a number of different important 
research studies undertaken by I I Thus, it is clear the Petitioner has played a critical role at the 
organization. 
is the U.S. government research institute tasked with researching The 
Petitioner submitted various articles confirming that the organization is the largest supporter of the 
2 
I 
world's research on _________ As the evidence shows, it is a highly distinguished 
organization. In light of the record, we find that the Petitioner has demonstrated that he satisfies the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
As such, the Petitioner has established he meets three criteria and has satisfied part one of the two­
step adjudicative process described in Kazarian. Accordingly, we will withdraw the Director's 
decision. As noted above, where a petitioner demonstrates that they meet these initial evidentiary 
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, 596 
F.3d at 1115, section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3). We will therefore remand 
the matter for the Director to make the final merits determination in the first instance. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
3