remanded EB-1A Case: Neurotoxicology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 19880517 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 29, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a senior research fellow in neurotoxicology, 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 met the initial evidence requirements for this classification by satisfying 
at least three of the ten criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) or demonstrating his receipt a major, 
internationally recognized award. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
We review the questions in this matter de nova. See Matter of Christo 's Inc ., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 
n.2 (AAO 2015). In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner 's burden to establish eligibility for the 
requested benefit by a preponderance of the evidence. See Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). Upon de nova review, we will remand the 
matter to the Director for further consideration and entry of a new decision. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(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 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 
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); 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 Petitionerj a researcher in the field of neurotoxicology, received his doctorate degree in biomedical 
sciences from. !University in 2018. In addition, he was awarded a Doctor of Veterinary 
Medicine degree at I !Veterinary University in India in 2010 and is a board-licensed 
veterinarian in the United States. Since completing his Ph.D., the Petitioner has worked as a 
postdoctoral research associate atl !University and as a research fellow and senior research 
fellow atl !Department of I A letter from the I I indicates that his 
research projects at the time the etition was filed included development ofbiomarkers forl I 
disease and other diseases using an ultrasensitive real-time I I 
technology, and investigation of the molecular mechanisms of pathological 
genetic risk variants of disease. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that he has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, he must demonstrate that he satisfies at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Petitioner claims that he meets three of these criteria based on 
his participation as a judge of the work of others in his field, his original research contributions, and 
his authorship of scholarly articles in professional publications. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), (v) 
and (vi). 
The Director denied the petition after determining that the Petitioner met only two of the three claimed 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The record indicates that the Petitioner has peer-reviewed 
manuscripts for several journals including Toxicological Sciences, Neurotoxicology, Prion, Journal of 
Cellular Physiology and The American Journal of Pathology, among others. This evidence satisfies 
the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), which requires documentation of the individual's 
2 
participation as the judge of the work of others in his field. Accordingly, we agree with the Director 
that this criterion was met. 
In addition, the Petitioner has authored scholarly articles published in journals including Movement 
Disorders, Neuropharmacology, The American Journal of Pathology, Prion, and The Journal of 
Biological Chemistry, among others, and therefore has satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he has made original scientific contributions of major significance 
in his field and maintains that the Director erred in concluding that he did not also meet the criterion 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). To satisfy this criterion, a petitioner must establish that not only have 
they made original contributions but that such contributions have been of major significance in the 
field. For example, a petitioner may show that their contributions have been widely implemented 
throughout the field, have remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a 
level of major significance in the field. The record reflects that the Petitioner claimed eligibility for 
this criterion based on his published research, citation record, many detailed letters from experts in his 
field, evidence of government-provided research funding, and media reports about his published 
research, among other evidence. The Petitioner maintains that the Director did not appropriately weigh 
all the evidence submitted in support of this criterion. 
A letter from a professor of neurology at University of 
Diseases, explains that the Petitioner is recognized for successfully modifying the 
__ assay for "an increasing array of applications, which has in tum led to more and more 
incorporation of this assay into other researchers' work, including in otherl I fields." 
I I provides several concrete examples of how she and other scientists have relied on and 
recognized the significance of the Petitioner's work. 
For instance, I emphasizes that the Beneficiary's work onl I disease detection was 
highlighted in a 2020 Neurology I noting that the I I authors acknowledged his 
"contributions to thel I an international task force working 
to standardize and reproduce methods for neurotoxicolo y research." The referenced I I 
described the Petitioner's enhancement of the assa as "a major com onent of this 
international effort " as it ' 
In a letter submitted in support of the petition, 
Head of the School of Environment and Science at !university (Australia), 
explains how the Petitioner's study published in th 2020 issue of Movement Disorders and 
featured! "established the 
disease from control samples at early stages of the disease - a very significant outcome." These and 
other letters in the record contain probative details regarding not only the novelty and utility of the 
Petitioner's research, but also specific examples of how it has significantly influenced further 
academic research and clinical investigation of early diagnostic methods for neurological disorders 
and prion diseases in both animals and humans. 
The record further demonstrates that the Petitioner's 2020 Movement Disorders article 
attracted the attention of scientific and mainstream media publications (including 
3 
ScienceDaily, MedScape, Yahoo and MSN) which highlighted both the study's finding that a simple 
skin test can detect biomarkers for I disease, and the implications of this method for early 
detection and treatment of the disease. 
After reviewing the totality of the evidence submitted in support of this criterion, including evidence 
not discussed here, we conclude that the Petitioner has provided sufficient detail to establish the nature 
and significance of his original contributions to his field, and met his burden to demonstrate that he 
satisfies the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). Accordingly, we withdraw the Director's 
determination that the Petitioner did not submit evidence demonstrating that he meets this criterion. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
Because we conclude that the Petitioner meets the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), (v) and (vi), 
he has met the initial evidence requirement for the requested classification. 
Accordingly, the totality of the evidence, including evidence not discussed by the Director in his 
decision or herein, must be analyzed in a final merits determination to assess whether it shows that the 
Petitioner has sustained national or international acclaim in his field and is one of the small percentage 
of scientists at the top of his field. As the Director's decision did not include a final merits 
determination or any assessment of whether the evidence submitted establishes the Petitioner's 
sustained acclaim, we remand this matter for him to consider the entirety of the record and determine 
whether the Petitioner has established his eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a 
new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
4