remanded EB-1A Case: Vaccine Industry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 4, 2024 In Re: 33969006 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an executive in the vaccine industry, 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 )(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 degrees in law and business administration in Belgium in the 1980s and early 1990s. 
After working as a lawyer for various companies in Belgium and the United Kingdom, in 1997 the 
Petitioner began working for I Imostly in Belgium, focusing on 
vaccine business development. A report from 2023 states the Petitioner's title as Senior Vice 
President and General Counsel, Vaccine Business Development and Global Health. In late 2023, the 
Petitioner became the chief business officer of _______ a new company based outside 
Washington, D.C. He is currently in the United States as an 0-1 nonimmigrant with extraordinary ability. 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or shown that he received a major, internationally recognized 
award, he 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 three of these criteria, summarized below: 
• (ii), Membership in associations that require outstanding achievements; 
• (iii), Published material about the individual in professional or major media; 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance; 
• (viii), Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments; and 
• (ix), High remuneration for services. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner met one of the criteria, pertaining to a leading or critical 
role. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he also meets the other four claimed criteria, or that he has 
submitted comparable evidence relating to those criteria. 
Upon review of the record, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has established a leading or 
critical role for organizations or establishments with a distinguished reputation, satisfying the 
requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). We also conclude that the Petitioner has established, by 
a preponderance of the evidence, that he satisfies a second criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix), 
pertaining to a high salary or other significantly high remuneration. We will discuss the other claimed 
criteria below. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
class[fication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
2 
The Petitioner attended annual meetings between senior leaders of and the National Institute of 
Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), chaired by then­
NIAID Director Dr. Anthony Fauci, beginning in 2016. The Petitioner asserted that his participation in 
the senior leaders meeting is, in effect, membership in a qualifying association in the field, or comparable 
to such a membership under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). 
The Petitioner has not established that an annual meeting is an association in the field, and although he 
states that he was invited to participate "due to his world-renowned expertise in vaccine business 
strategy," the record, including a letter from Dr. Fauci, indicates that participation is determined by rank 
within the participating organizations. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner's participation in the meetings was not membership in an 
association. The Petitioner argues on appeal that "the plain language elements of the criterion do not 
readily apply to his occupation" because "vaccine business strategy and development [is] a unique field 
for which typical membership associations are not available." This argument assumes that a qualifying 
association must narrowly focus on a particular specialty. An association with a wider scope, for example 
encompassing the pharmaceutical industry or business in general, could qualify as long as its membership 
requirements conformed to the regulatory requirements. 1 The Petitioner has not established that such 
associations do not exist, or that they would exclude individuals employed in "vaccine business strategy 
and development." 
We agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not met his burden ofproof with regard to memberships. 
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). 
To satisfy the requirements of this criterion, the published material should be about the person, relating 
to the person's work in the field, not just about the person's employer and the employer's work or another 
organization and that organization's work. The person and the person's work need not be the only subject 
of the material, but the material should include a substantial discussion of the person's work in the field. 
See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(l), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
The Petitioner submitted press releases and articles indicating that the Petitioner was present at news 
conferences announcing the establishment of manufacturing facilities in Texas and Saudi Arabia. These 
articles include brief quotations from the Petitioner but do not detail his roles in the project or otherwise 
substantially discuss the Petitioner and his work in the field. Another article, about a legal dispute 
between the European Union and vaccine manufacturer AstraZeneca, includes quotations from the 
Petitioner intended to provide perspective, but the article does not contain substantial discussion of the 
Petitioner and his work. 
1 We note that the record shows that several individuals named in the record are members of the National Academy of 
Sciences, which is a qualifying association under the regulation despite encompassing a wide range of scientific fields. 
Membership in a business association with similar membership requirements could qualify under the regulation without 
having to narrowly tailor membership to individuals employed in "vaccine business strategy and development." 
3 
The Petitioner asserted that "many articles and press releases are written about the results of [his] 
contributions, but ... do not specifically name [him]" because "much of [his] work ... is typically behind­
the-scenes." Therefore, the Petitioner contended that published materials about business deals that he 
orchestrated should serve as comparable evidence. 
In denying the petition, the Director acknowledged the Petitioner's request that the articles be considered 
as comparable evidence. The Director stated: "the material cannot be treated as comparable evidence 
because the articles are clearly not about the petitioner and his work." The Director also concluded that 
the submitted materials did not meet all the regulatory requirements, such as author credits and evidence 
that the articles appeared in qualifying publications. The Petitioner submitted some circulation data from 
a third-party website, but this information does not show that the trade or other media qualify as "major" 
as the regulation requires. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director improperly required "comparable evidence" to meet 
the same regulatory requirements. We acknowledge that comparable evidence, by its nature, would not 
precisely conform to all the regulatory requirements. Nevertheless, the Petitioner must establish that the 
criterion does not readily apply to his occupation. The assertion that he works "behind-the-scenes" does 
not appear to suffice in this regard. Even if his work attracts little attention from mainstream media for 
public consumption, the regulation also contemplates professional and trade publications, which are 
tailored to narrower, more specialized readerships. 
The Petitioner observes that, under the USCIS 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." See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, 
supra, at F.2(B)(l). Here, much of the published material focuses on the establishment of research 
centers, but the focus of those articles is not on the underlying business negotiations. 
Some of the published materials support the conclusion that the Petitioner has performed in leading or 
critical roles, as covered by a separate criterion. Articles naming the Petitioner as a participant in high­
profile news conferences can have some weight in a final merits determination. But the Petitioner has 
not met his burden ofproof to show that he has been the subject ofpublished material in qualifying media 
to meet this specific criterion, nor has he shown that the criterion does not readily apply to his occupation. 
Evidence ofthe alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions ofmajor significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The Petitioner asserted that he "led vaccine development and pandemic preparedness efforts over the 
course of two modem pandemics - the 2010 HlNl Flu pandemic and the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic." 
The Petitioner stated that his "business accomplishments include serving as the lead and driving force 
behind numerous high-profile transactions" involving The Petitioner submitted documentation 
concerning several of these transactions, such as vaccine licensing agreements and the establishment of a 
sponsored by the U.S. Department 
of Health and Human Services, on the campus of _______ 
4 
The Petitioner submitted letters from some very prominent figures, such as Dr. Fauci, mentioned above, 
and Rick Perry, governor of Texas from 2000 to 2015. These individuals and others described the 
Petitioner's role in coordinating efforts that, in Dr. Fauci's words, "served to facilitate the collaborative 
mission between the greater NIH andl I For example, Dr. Fauci stated that the Petitioner "personally 
negotiated and/or oversaw several critical licensing agreements between the NIH and the I I 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner had shown that he had made original contributions, but had 
not established their major significance in the field. The Director repeatedly referred to "scientific 
contributions." 
But it bears emphasis that the Petitioner does not claim to be a scientist or a researcher. The Petitioner's 
training is in law and business administration, and his work has involved business negotiations rather than 
scientific research. The nature of the Petitioner's business contributions, and of the evidence regarding 
those contributions and their significance, will likely differ from the types of evidence we would expect 
regarding scientific contributions. By viewing the Petitioner's contributions through the lens of 
"scientific contributions," the Director appears to have imposed standards that do not apply to the business 
contributions documented in the record. 
As the Director appears to have viewed this evidence under the wrong field, we will remand this matter 
for further consideration. The Director must view the Petitioner's business contributions in the proper 
context, and request additional evidence if the Director deems it necessary. 
III. CONCLUSION 
While we affirm some of the Director's specific determinations, what remains may be sufficient to 
meet three of the initial evidentiary criteria. We will therefore remand the matter to the Director for 
further consideration of the original contributions criterion. 
If the Director determines that the Petitioner has met his burden of proof regarding that criterion, the 
Director shall then proceed to a final merits determination as described in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 
1119-20. We emphasize that the Petitioner claims extraordinary ability in business, not in the 
sciences. Therefore the Director should neither expect the types of evidence normally seen in the 
sciences, nor draw adverse conclusions from the Petitioner's inability to submit such evidence. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
5