sustained EB-1A Case: Biophysics And Biomedicine

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 19547559 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : AUG . 27, 2021 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary ability in biophysics and biomedicine . 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. 
In a decision dated September 11, 2019, the Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the 
petition, concluding that the Petitioner had not satisfied any of the initial evidentiary criteria, of which 
he must meet at least three. On July 21, 2020, we dismissed the Petitioner's appeal. The Petitioner 
subsequently filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of 
California, which granted the Petitioner's motion for summary judgment, and remanded for further 
proceedings consistent with their o:inion. I I I , I Specifically, the Court concluded that 
the record established that the Petitioner satisfied the initial evidentiary requirements and remanded 
the matter to us to evaluate the totality of the evidence in the context of a final merits determination. 
Upon consideration of the Court's opinion and the arguments and evidence in the record of proceeding, 
we will sustain the appeal. 
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 that 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). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner 
to submit comparable material if he or she is able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not readily apply to the individual's occupation. 
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. USCJS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Procedural History 
The Petitioner indicates he is the founder and chief executive officer of-I ______ I where his 
work involves "innovating with technical applications across Biophysics and Biomedicine." Because 
the Petitioner concedes that he has not 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). In denying the 
petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not fulfill any of the initial evidentiary criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserted that he met five criteria, including through the submission of 
comparable evidence. In our prior decision we determined that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that 
he meets the criteria related to awards under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), published materials under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), and original contributions under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). As we 
concluded that the Petitioner was unable to fulfill at least three criteria, we reserved a determination 
on the criteria related to scholarly articles at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) and leading or critical role at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) and did not provide the type of final merits determination referenced in 
Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 
The Court concluded that we erred in our determination, finding that the Petitioner submitted evidence 
sufficient to establish that he meets the criteria relating to awards, published materials, and original 
contributions. The Court found no error in our determination that the Petitioner did not meet his 
burden to demonstrate that he may use comparable evidence to demonstrate his eligibility. 1 Further, 
1 In addition, the Court determined that because the Petitioner did not contest on appeal the Director's determination that 
he did not establish that he meets the criterion related to high salary at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) it would not consider the 
Petitioner's argument on this issue. 
2 
the Court analyzed the documentation submitted under the criteria related to scholarly articles at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) and leading or critical role at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), finding that the 
Petitioner met the scholarly articles criterion but did not satisfy the leading or critical role criterion. 
In sum, the Court concluded that the Petitioner fulfilled step one of the Kazarian framework because 
he fulfilled the regulatory requirements of four criteria. The Court remanded the case to us to evaluate 
the totality of the evidence in the context of a final merits determination. 2 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the Petitioner has submitted the reqms1te initial evidence, we will evaluate whether he has 
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, his sustained national or international acclaim, that 
he is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, and that his achievements 
have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. In a final merits determination, 
we analyze a petitioner's accomplishments and weigh the totality of the evidence to determine if his 
successes are sufficient to demonstrate that he has extraordinary ability in the field of endeavor. See 
section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-
20. 3 Accordingly, we have analyzed the record in its entirety, which includes other relevant evidence 
such as the Petitioner's scholarly articles and leading or critical role. In this matter, we determine that 
the Petitioner has demonstrated his eligibility. 
In the present matter, the Petitioner has submitted extensive documentation of his achievements in the 
biophysics and biomedicine fields and has demonstrated a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as 
contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). The evidence provided, in the 
aggregate, is sufiicient to demonstrate the Petitioner's sustained national and international acclaim as 
a biophysics and biomedicine researcher, scientist, and clinician, and as a biophysicist chief executive 
officer, and that his achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise. In addition, the 
submitted documentation shows that the Petitioner is among that small percentage who has risen to 
the very top of the field of endeavor. The Petitioner has authored a substantial number of articles in 
distinguished journals and conference proceedings that have garnered a large number of citations, some 
of which apply and build upon his work, for instance, in the area ot1 I I I See Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1121 (citations may be relevant to the final merits 
determination of whether an individual is at the very top of the field). 4 Further, the Petitioner 
submitted reference letters from experts in the field, detailing his specific contributions and explaining 
how those contributions are of major significance in his field. For example,! Jin 
discussing examples of the Petitioner's specific achievements and their impact on the field, stated that 
the Petitioner's patente~ I obtained "the first positive result in a relevant I I 
model" and his work in._ ____ __.f "is now a recognized approach at research agencies both in the 
2 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2, https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-2 (providing that 
objectively meeting the regulatory criteria in part one alone does not establish that an individual meets the requirements 
for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability under section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act). 
3 Id. (stating that USCTS officers should then evaluate the evidence together when considering the petition in its entirety 
to determine if the petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence the required high level of expertise of the 
immigrant classification). 
4 The Petitioner submitted a user profile from Research Gate at the time of filing, indicating that his 68 publications had 
been cited 2,204 times in total. Within his response to the Director's request for evidence, the Petitioner provided a 
citation summary from Google Scholar showing 2,886 total citations. 
3 
E.U. and the U.S." While we need not accept unsupported conclusory assertions, 5 the evidence of 
record, including evidence not discussed in this decision, supports these conclusions. 
Moreover, the record contains articles about the Petitioner relating to his work in the field that appeared 
in professional publications dedicated to the business technology or biometrics industry. Given the 
Petitioner's area of claimed extraordinary ability, being featured in such publications with references 
such as~-----------------------------~' is indicative 
of his acclaim. Further, the record shows that in his role as chief executive officer of the start-up 
I khe Petitioner's patents have resulted in the company being awarded a relatively high 
amount of venture capital investment froml l based on the importance of his work 
in the field as the inventor of the I I identity validation technology. Similarly, as chief 
integration officer at the I I, the Petitioner's patents 
resulted in a significant amount of angel investor and venture capital fonding for its I ~ handheld 
health monitoring device and its in-homel [test system, with the latter obtaining approval 
by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and entering the market. We find that the relatively high 
fonding amounts based on the importance of the Petitioner's past and ongoing work in the field, from 
entities that the record indicates have a history of fonding startups that have achieved success, is also 
evidence of his acclaim. 
In light of the evidence discussed above and other corroborating evidence of record, the Petitioner's 
achievements are commensurate with sustained national and international acclaim at the very top of his 
field. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has submitted evidence qualifying under at least three of the ten categories of evidence 
and established a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who 
have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor" and "sustained national or international acclaim." 
The Petitioner's achievements have been recognized in his field of expertise and he has established 
that he seeks to continue working in the same field in the United States. The Petitioner has shown that 
his entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the United States. He therefore 
qualifies for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
5 See 1756, Inc. v. The Attorney General of the United States, 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
4