remanded EB-1A Case: Plant Pathology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 2, 2024 In Re: 33380170 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a scientist researching plant pathology, seeks classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. 
§ l l 53(b )(1 )(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 under 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 l&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 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. These individuals must seek to enter the United States to continue work in 
the area of extraordinary ability, and their entry into the United States will substantially benefit 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 their achievements in the field through a one-time 
achievement in the form of a major, internationally recognized award. Or the petitioner can submit 
evidence 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. If those standards 
do not readily apply to the individual's occupation, then the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows 
the submission of comparable evidence. 
Once a petitioner has met the initial evidence requirements, the next step is a final merits 
determination, in which we 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. 20 I 0) ( 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); Rijalv. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner earned a doctorate in a riculture from in 2016, through a 
joint program with the ______________ She then trained as a research fellow at 
_____ from 2016 to 2021. When she filed the petition in 2022, the Petitioner was a post-
doctoral associate at as a J-1 nonimmigrant exchange visitor. The Petitioner stated 
that her "contributions include strategies to control Phytophthora capsici . .. , Tobacco mosaic virus ... , 
and root parasitic weeds."1 
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 initially claimed to have satisfied five of these criteria, summarized below: 
• (iii), Published material about the individual 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; and 
• (viii), Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner met two of the criteria, relating to judging and authorship 
of scholarly articles. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that she also meets the criterion relating to 
original contributions. The Petitioner also incorporates her earlier response to a request for evidence 
(RFE), referring to her claims regarding published material about her and leading or critical roles. 
The Petitioner contends on appeal that the Director did not consider the record as a whole, instead 
focusing on how specific parts of the record addressed individual regulatory criteria. Under the 
Kazarian framework, a petitioner must first satisfy the requirements of at least three regulatory criteria. 
The second step is to review the record as a whole with regard to whether the Petitioner has established 
sustained national or international acclaim. The Director did not proceed to that second step, having 
concluded that the Petitioner had not satisfied at least three of the threshold criteria. 
1 We note that, in March 2024, the Petitioner filed an immigrant petition for classification as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree under section 203(b)(2) of the Act. That petition, with receipt number I I was 
approved in July 2024. 
2 
Upon review of the record, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has satisfied the criteria 
relating to judging and scholarly articles. As discussed below, we also agree with the Director that 
the Petitioner has not satisfied the criteria relating to published material and leading or critical roles. 
Further below, we will discuss the Petitioner's remaining claim of original contributions of major 
significance. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in the fieldfor which classification is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author ofthe material, and any necessa,y 
translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The published material should be about the person, relating to the person's work in the field. However, 
the person and the person's work need not be the only subject of the material; published material that 
covers a broader topic but includes a substantial discussion of the person's work in the field and mentions 
the person in connection to the work may be considered material about the person relating to the person's 
work. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(l), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
We may consider material that focuses solely or primarily on work or research being undertaken by a team 
of which the person is a member, provided that the material mentions the person in connection with the 
work or other evidence in the record documents the person's significant role in the work or research. Id. 
Under this criterion, the Petitioner pointed to the citations of her scholarly articles by other researchers. 
Those citations mention the Petitioner's name when she is the primary author of the cited article, but the 
citing articles are not solely or primarily about the Petitioner's work in the field. Rather, the citing authors 
identified the Petitioner or the team in which she works as the source, or one of multiple sources, for a 
particular fact referenced in the citing article. Such citations are not published materials about the 
Petitioner, any more than the Petitioner's own scholarly articles are published materials about any of the 
authors whom she and her co-authors cited in those articles. 
One of the Petitioner's articles appeared in ChemBioChem with the tag "Very Important Paper" above 
the title. This three-word tag is not, by itself, published material about the Petitioner. Its relevance to the 
significance of the Petitioner's work is a separate consideration, discussed further below. 
We agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not met the requirements of this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
In the initial statement submitted with the petition, the Petitioner did not directly address this criterion 
except to state that "the totality of the evidence already presented would make this category an easy 
win." Because the Petitioner bears the burden of proof in this proceeding, it is the Petitioner's 
responsibility to explain how the evidence supports her claims. It is not sufficient for the Petitioner to 
refer generally to categories of evidence in the record and assert that unspecified information in that 
evidence establishes that she is, or has been, a "Key Member of [ an unnamed] Distinguished 
Organization." 
3 
In the RFE, the Director discussed fully the types of evidence and information that would be necessary 
for the Petitioner to establish a leading or critical role for a distinguished organization or establishment. 
In response, the Petitioner cited "material showing that is a distinguished organization." 
We do not dispute the distinguished reputation of I I as a whole, but the Petitioner has not 
explained how her employment as a p ostdoctoral researcher in the Department of Plant Biology is 
leading or critical for the entirety of I Alternatively, where a role is leading or 
critical for a division or department of an organization or establishment, the petitioner must show that 
the department or division has a distinguished reputation. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, 
at F.2(B)(l). Here, the Petitioner's response to the RFE included a letter from the professor who 
supervises the Petitioner at I I The professor stated that the Petitioner "was recruited as the number 
2 member of my group." The Petitioner did not cite evidence of a leading or critical role beyond the 
professor's group, or evidence that the professor's group has a distinguished reputation in its own right. 
We agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not met her burden of proof to meet the regulatory 
requirements for this criterion. 
There remains one more criterion, toward which the Petitioner has devoted the bulk of her arguments 
in the petition and on appeal. 
Evidence ofthe alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions ofmajor sign[ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
When determining the major significance of an individual's contributions, examples of relevant evidence 
include, but are not limited to: 
• Published materials about the significance of the person's original work; 
• Testimonials, letters, and affidavits about the person's original work; 
• Documentation that the person's original work was cited at a level indicative ofmajor significance 
in the field; and 
• Patents or licenses deriving from the person's work or evidence ofcomrnercial use ofthe person's 
work. 
See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(l). 
Evidence that the person's work was funded, patented, or published, while potentially demonstrating the 
work's originality, will not necessarily establish, on its own, that the work is of major significance to the 
field. For example, published research that has provoked widespread commentary on its importance from 
others working in the field, and documentation that it 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. 
Similarly, evidence that the person developed a patented technology that has attracted significant attention 
or commercialization may establish the significance of the person's original contribution to the field. Id. 
In denying the petition, the Director concluded that the Petitioner "has made original contributions to the 
field," but had not established the major significance of those contributions. 
4 
We agree with the Petitioner's argument on appeal that the Director did not sufficiently explain why the 
submitted evidence is insufficient. The Petitioner has devoted most of her arguments and evidence to the 
"original contributions" criterion, but the denial notice provides few details about why the evidence is 
insufficient. 
For example, the Director acknowledged the Petitioner's submission of citation data for the Petitioner's 
articles, but did not say how this information affected the outcome of the decision. If it is the Director's 
position that the Petitioner has not shown her work to be particularly well-cited, then the Director must 
explain how this is the case, citing to evidence in the record. 2 
We consider documentation that the person's original work was cited at a level indicative of major 
significance in the field. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(l). The burden is on 
the Petitioner to establish that the rate of citations of her published work rises to that level. The Petitioner 
has submitted citation statistics which the Director has not yet evaluated. On remand, the Director must 
consider this information and gauge its reliability and applicability. 3 
The Director also stated that the Petitioner submitted "reference letters [that] do not go into detail on how 
the beneficiary's work has accomplished contributions of major significance." This conclusion, simply 
stated without illustrative examples, is not sufficient to permit an effective appeal. 4 
At the same time, we emphasize that characterizations in the Petitioner's statements and briefs cannot 
suffice to establish the significance of her contributions. Statements in a brief, motion, or Notice of 
Appeal are not evidence and thus are not entitled to any evidentiary weight. Matter ofS-M-, 22 I&N Dec. 
49, 51 (BIA 1998). For instance, the Petitioner's assertions about the significance of the "Very Important 
Paper" tag appended to her ChemBioChem article have no weight as evidence, and the burden of proof is 
on the Petitioner to support those assertions. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner's claim rests heavily on evidence intended to show original contributions of major 
significance. The Director's discussion of that evidence lacked sufficient detail to explain how the 
Director reached the conclusions stated in the denial notice. On remand, the Director must consider 
2 If the Director relies upon evidence or information from outside the record, then the Director must advise the Petitioner of 
that evidence or information as set fo1ih at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(16)(i). 
3 Some of the citation statistics are divided by fields. The Petitioner compares her citation rate to the statistics for "Plant 
& Animal Science," rather than to other, more highly cited fields such as "Microbiology" and "Molecular Biology & 
Genetics." The burden is on the Petitioner to establish that Clarivate, which compiled the statistics, categorizes the 
Petitioner's published work under "Plant & Animal Science." Without such evidence, the Petitioner has not established 
that the statistics in that field apply to her published work. We also note that the Petitioner's appeal, filed in 2024, includes 
year-by-year citation statistics that appear to date from 2020, in which case they were out of date at the time of their 
submission. The Petitioner appears to characterize these statistics as applying to a researcher's total career citation total, 
but they appear instead to refer to specific articles. 
4 Some letters and other materials credit the Petitioner with making a particular discovery or observation "for the first 
time." We emphasize that being the first to make a particular finding may be a sign of originality, but it does not establish 
its major significance. It cannot suffice for the Petitioner to show that she was the first to make a particular finding; she 
must also establish that the finding is of major significance in the field. Likewise, letters and other materials explain why 
particular findings are useful, but that does not convey how the findings are of major significance in the field. 
5 
this evidence more fully and, if appropriate, allow the Petitioner another opportunity to supplement 
the record with specified evidence. 
In the event the Director determines that the Petitioner has satisfied three initial criteria, then the 
Director must undertake a final merits determination as outlined in Kazarian. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
6