remanded EB-1A Case: Neuroscience

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 07, 2024 In Re: 29835003 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a post-doctoral research fellow in the neuroscience field, 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 Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, that she meets at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria set forth in the 
implementing regulations for this classification. 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 ofChawathe, 25 I&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. 
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 will 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). 
The Petitioner is a research scientist who was working as a post-doctoral research fellow in the 
neuroscience field for a U.S. medical school when the petition was filed. 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 the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), (v) and (vi). 
The Director determined that the Petitioner satisfied two of the three claimed criteria. Specifically, 
the Director concluded that she has authored scholarly articles in her field and participated as a judge 
of the work of others in that field and thus satisfied the plain language of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi). The record supports the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner satisfied 
these two criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director did not carefully 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). 
Upon review, we agree that the Director's determination with respect to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v) was conclusory and 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, U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (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 determination whether a petitioner's contributions are of "major significance." Id. 
Here, the Director acknowledged that the Petitioner articulated her specific original contributions to 
the field and submitted supporting evidence that included eight letters from experts in her field, her 
citation history from Google Scholar, copies of published research and review articles that cite to her 
work, information regarding the journals where her research findings have been published, evidence 
intended to support her claim that some of her articles have been highly cited, and other evidence 
2 
intended to provide context to the nature and significance of her research contributions. While the 
Director noted the Petitioner's submission of this relevant evidence, it is difficult to discern what 
specific evidence the Director ultimately considered in their evaluation of this criterion, because the 
stated reasons for denial contain few, if any, references to the specific claims and supporting 
documentation she provided. 
For example, the Director did not specifically address any of the eight letters submitted as expert 
testimony. Instead, the decision reaches a conclusory determination that the letters did not explain 
"how [the Petitioner's] research amounted to original work, and how her specific contributions to the 
research projects impacted the field as a whole." 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(8)( 1 ). Here, the Director offered an inadequate explanation as to why they found the 
letters to be lacking in probative value. 
The Director further acknowledged the Petitioner's claim that some citations to her work were 
"notable" but found, contrary to the evidence submitted, that there was "no evidence in the record" to 
support her claim. In fact, each of the submitted expert opinion letters addressed notable citations to 
the Petitioner's published work and commented on the significance of such citations. The Director 
also concluded that the record established only "a moderate number of citations to the petitioner's 
work," but did not explain that conclusion considering the Petitioner provided evidence indicating that 
at least two of her published articles were among the top 10 percent most cited in her field. Under 
USCIS 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 USCJS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(l). 
While the Director is not required to provide a detailed discussion of every piece of evidence the 
Petitioner submitted, the decision here was too general to convey that it was based on a reasoned 
consideration all relevant evidence in the record and did not adequately explain the specific reasons 
for denial. Accordingly, the Director's decision is withdrawn, and the matter will be remanded to the 
Director to re-evaluate the evidence submitted under the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), and to 
issue a new decision. 
If, after further review on remad, the Director determines that the Petitioner satisfies this 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. 
3