sustained EB-1A Case: Biomaterials

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF Y-K-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 18, 2015 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an individual who works in the field of biomaterials, seeks classification as a person 
"of extraordinary ability" in science. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) § 203(b )(1 )(A); 
8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(1 )(A). The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the petition. The matter is 
now before us on appeal. The appeal will be sustained. 
The classification the Petitioner seeks on behalf of the Beneficiary makes visas available to foreign 
nationals 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 determined that the Petitioner had not satisfied the initial evidence 
requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3), which requires a one-time achievement or 
documentation that meets at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. On appeal, the Petitioner 
submits a brief and other materials. For the reasons discussed below, the Petitioner has established 
his eligibility for the classification sought. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states in pertinent part: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants 
who are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph 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 
Matter ofY-K-
(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 regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) sets forth two different methods by which a petitioner can demonstrate extraordinary 
ability sustained by national or international acclaim and the recognition of the petitioner's 
achievement in the field. First, a petitioner can show a one-time achievement (that is, a major, 
internationally recognized award). Second, a petitioner can satisfy at least three of the ten categories 
listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). If a petitioner opts for this second method of demonstrating 
_ extraordinary ability, the analysis is two-part: First, we assess whether the petitioner has submitted 
evidence that meets at least three of the ten categories. If so, we then assess the record in its totality 
to determine if the petitioner is indeed one of those individuals in that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USC IS, 596 F .3d 1115 (91h Cir. 201 0) 
(discussing a two-part review where the evidence is first counted and then, if satisfying the required 
number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination). See also Rijal v. USCIS, 
772 F.Supp.2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011) (affirming our proper application of Kazarian), aff'd, 683 
F.3d. 1030 (91h Cir. 2012); Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F.Supp.3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013) (finding that 
we appropriately applied the two-step review); Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 
2010) (holding that the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its 
quality" and that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) examines "each piece of 
evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and within the context of 
the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true"). 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
The Petitioner has satisfied the following criteria. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an alliedfield of spec?fication for which class?fication is sought. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner demonstrated eligibility for this criterion. A review of 
the record reflects that the Petitioner submitted sufficient documentary evidence to show that he 
participated as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field, as required by 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). Specifically, the Petitioner has served as a peer-reviewer for eight scientific 
journals. Accordingly, the Petitioner has met this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient(fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major sign(ficance in the.field. 
To satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner's original contributions must be of "major significance" in the 
field as whole. In support of the significance of his scientific contributions, the Petitioner provided 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter ofY-K-
letters of recommendation, citations of his work by others in the field, and invitations to submit 
papers, write chapters, and speak at conferences. The Director determined that the Petitioner did not 
meet the requirements of this criterion, stating that the letters of recommendation and citations to his 
papers were not commensurate with contributions of major significance. On appeal, the Petitioner 
indicates that the Director did not fully and adequately consider the evidence presented. 
The Petitioner received his Ph.D. in Biomedical Engineering from He 
performed postdoctoral research at the and the and is 
currently conducting research at _ According to the 
Petitioner, his contributions to the field of biomaterials include his research findings on polymer 
microparticles, bioceramic scaffolds, and their application in tissue regeneration. 
To show his contributions in the field, the Petitioner provided nine letters of recommendation that 
discuss his work. 1 A letter from an associate professor of Orthopaedic Surgery 
and Bioengineering at the stated that, while grafts are currently used 
for bone repair, their application is limited due to the scarcity of quality donor bone and 
immunopathogenesis . Synthetic ceramic scaffolds are a promising alternative to grafting , however , 
major issues arise due to insufficient vascularization needed to provide rapid blood supply for cell 
survival and tissue development. According to the the Petitioner was the first to develop 
the method of co-culturing endothelial cells with bone marrow stem cells on a ~- TCP ceramic 
scaffold. Utilizing extracellular matrix proteins secreted by bone marrow stem cells to support the 
endothelial cells, the Petitioner demonstrated how the co-culture allows almost arbitrary control over 
the ratio of bone marrow stem cells to endothelial cells, which can promote optimized vascular 
networks. characterizes this work as a "breakthrough." 
2 an associate professor in the Department of Orthopedic Surgery at 
noted that the Petitioner developed a physical technique for depositing an extracellular matrix (ECM) 
on a ceramic scaffold for inducing the differentiation of bone marrow stem cells, which "presents a 
perfect example of the integration ofbioceramic scaffold for flexible clinical applications." 
an assistant professor in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the 
explained that the Petitioner's work "has provided new insights to 
researchers on how to use supercritical fluid technique to design various polymer loaded drug 
nanoparticles for delivery system." further stated that the Petitioner ' s work has served as 
the foundation for a number of articles published by other researchers and has inspired his own work 
using a scalable method to prepare spherical nanoshells. 
1 
We discuss only a sampling of these letters, but have reviewed and considered each one. 
2 The Petitioner cutTently works as a researcher in lab. The Director noted the relationship between 
and the Petitioner in the denial and called into question the objectivity of a close colleague. The 
Petitioner, however, provided eight other letters from independent authors who have similar opinions of the 
Petitioner's work. 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter ofY-K-
In describing the application of the Petitioner's findings, an assistant professor of 
Orthopaedic Science at the Medical Center, asserted that the Petitioner's work 
"provided useful guidance" for his own study on drug delivery from scaffolds. indicated that 
he used a similar approach and achieved positive results in vivo. Similarly, a 
scientist at the noted that he referenced the Petitioner's 
work on modifying TCP scaffolds in his own research. He explained: "Based on [the Petitioner's] 
work, my group took an alternative approach where we used drug-like compounds in the presence of 
a porous TCP scaffold to stimulate osteogenic signal pathways to improve bone growth." 
In this case, each of the nine recommendation letters provided a detailed explanation of the 
Petitioner's work, as well as examples of its impact in the field. Several letters explained how the 
authors are currently using the Petitioner's findings in their own research. The Petitioner's extensive 
publishing and citation history supports these letters. At the time of filing, he had authored 70 
papers published in top journals 
with heavy citation by others in the field. The journals 
and are ranked the number one and number three journals, respectively, in the 
field of biomaterials, and both have published the Petitioner's articles. ranked number 
one in materials science and number four in multidisciplinary chemistry, has also published his 
work. reports 878 total citations to the Petitioner's papers. Significantly, many 
of the Petitioner's articles also have individually garnered large numbers of citations. The Petitioner 
is the first author on five of his ten most cited papers. Thus, the subjective opinions of the 
Petitioner's reference writers are supported and corroborated by objective citation statistics. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has demonstrated that his accomplishments have 
impacted the field at a level consistent with a contribution of major significance. Accordingly, the 
Petitioner has met this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner satisfied this criterion. A review of the record reflects 
that the Petitioner has authored or co-authored 70 scientific papers. Accordingly, the Petitioner has 
met this criterion. 
B. Summary 
The Petitioner has submitted the requisite initial evidence to satisfy three of the ten regulatory 
criteria. 
C. Final Merits Determination 
The next step is a final merits determination that considers all of the evidence in the context of 
whether or not the Petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a "level of expertise indicating that the 
individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor," 
and (2) "that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her 
4 
Matter ofY-K-
achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." Section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act; 
8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(2), (h)(3). See also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 
In the present matter, the Petitioner has submitted extensive documentation of his work in the field 
of biomaterials. As discussed above, he has shown an accomplished publishing history. The record 
indicates that the Petitioner has produced a high volume of published work that is also of high 
substantive quality as demonstrated both by the number of citations his work has received, as well as 
by the recommendation letters that explain the significance of the Petitioner's work in the field as a 
whole. The Petitioner provided further documentation regarding his acclaim in the field as an author 
for chapters in two different textbooks. He has also peer-reviewed articles for eight different 
journals, given four talks at conferences, and presented his work at many others. In the aggregate, 
the evidence shows that the Petitioner is a leader in the field of biomaterials with extraordinary 
ability. 
In light of the evidence discussed above and other corroborating evidence of record, the Petitioner's 
achievements in the aggregate are commensurate with sustained national and international acclaim at 
the very top of his field. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must show that the 
Petitioner has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage 
of individuals at the very top of his field of endeavor. When considered in light of the analysis 
outlined in the Kazarian decision, the Petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence to satisfy three 
evidentiary categories and also to demonstrate his extraordinary ability when considered in a final 
merits decision. 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013). Here, the Petitioner has met that burden. Therefore, the Petitioner has shown eligibility 
for the benefit sought under section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
Cite as Matter ofY-K-, ID# 13187 (AAO Sept. 18, 2015) 
5