sustained EB-1A Case: Biostatistics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF C-L-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY 5, 2017 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
' PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an assistant professor, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in 
the sciencesj 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had satisfied only two of the initial evidentiary criteria, of 
which he must meet at least three. On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and argues 
that he has demonstrated eligibility for this classification. 
Upon de novo review, we will sustain the appeal. 
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 of L-C-
(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 recognition in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a major, 
internationally recognized award). Alternatively, a petitioner can provide documentation that meets 
at least three of the 10 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). ' 
Satisfaction of at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this 
classification. See Kazarian v. USC IS,· 596 F .3d 1115 (9th Cir. 201 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); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.O. Wash. 2011), aff'd, 683 
F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Matter ofChawathe, 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"). Accordingly, where a 
petitioner submits qualifying evidence under at least three criteria, we will determine whether the 
totality of the record shows sustained national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the 
individual i~ among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. 
II. ANALYSIS 
As the Petitioner has not established that he has 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 found that the Petitioner met the judging criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and the authorship of scholarly articles criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). On 
appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he also meets the contributions of major significance criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). Upon review, we agree that the Petitioner has met the plain language 
requirements of these three criteria. Furthermore, in a firial merits analysis, we find that the 
Petitioner has demonstrated achievements indicating he is one of that small percentage at the very 
top of the field of endeavor. 
2 
.
Matter of L-C-
A. Evidentiary 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 alliedjield ofspecificationfor which class(fication is sought. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The Petitioner offered evidence that he has reviewed manuscripts submitted for publication in 
among other journals. We therefore agree with the Director that 
~he evidence provided meets the plain language requirements of the regulation. 
Evidence of the al~en 's original scient(fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The Director found the Petitioner did not meet this criterion. Upon a review of the record, however, 
we agree with the Petitioner that he has shown original scientific contributions of major significance 
in the field. 
The Petitioner provided evidence that he was a part of a team that conducted a study on osteoporosis, 
which resulted in considerable attention from the field, as well as from major media outlets. The 
resulting article titled, ' 
'appeared in in 2012. The findings presented in the 
article had important impacts in the medical 'industry. A practice guideline article in 
a leading journal in the field of infectious disease, discussed this work. Multiple 
major media publications, such as and also reported on 
the study. The Petitioner provided several examples of materials produced by insurance companies 
that cite to the study in support of their recommended policies. We therefore agree that the project 
had major significance. 
an assistant professor at the at who was 
first author on the article, explained the Petitioner's role in the project, stating that he provided a 
statistical analysis and data transformation, which structured the accumulated data into usable 
information. She indicated that the Petitioner served as one of the primary statisticians on the 
project, and that he was a crucial contributor to the research. Specifically, she noted that the 
Petitioner's understanding of analytics was incredibly helpful for determining the length of the 
recommended intervftl testing to limit osteoporotic fractures and other injuries. 
The Petitioner has demonstrated his role in this study, which received extensive attention from the 
media, the research community, and the medical industry. In view of the foregoing, the Petitioner 
has submitted evidence that meets the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
3 
.
Matter of L-C-
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
The Petitioner submitted evidence that he authored published scholarly articles in his field, such as 
which appeared in 
We therefore agree with the Director that the 
evidence provided meets the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
In a final merits determination, we examine the material in a collective nature to determine if the 
individual has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he or she has sustained national 
or international acclaim, and achievements recognized in the field through extensive documentation. 
The Petitioner has offered proof showing his peer review service, letters from experts in his field, 
data on the prestige related to journals that published his work, and evidence for how his work has 
influenced the field. 
The Petitioner currently serves as an assistant professor in the and 
department at In support of his extraordinary ability, the Petitioner points 
primarily to his record of publication. The previously discussed paper published in 
was among the top one percent of work published in clinical medicine for that 
year. of his other articles were among the top 1 0 percent of those published. We agree that 
the Petitioner's rate of success for someone relatively new to academia is consistent with an 
individual of extraordinary ability. 
In addition, the Petitioner provided supporting documentation to illustrate the substantive importance 
of the work reflected in his articles. The osteoporosis study for which the Petitioner worked with 
received attention in several major media outlets. The Petitioner's role as "a 
primary statistician" and "a crucial contributor to the research" is meaningful. The practical 
importance of the study is demonstrated by the various health industry publications that cite to the 
study as the basis for policies or recommendations. The iecord contains materials issued by the 
states of Oregon and Washington, as well as the insurance company that cite 
to the Petitioner's findings as the basis for medical screening recommendations. The wide reach of 
such recommendations means that the influence of this portion ofthe Petitioner's work has extended 
beyond the biostatistical field, and now impacts large 
swaths of the general population. 
Regarding his other papers, the Petitioner noted that his research findings are critical to the statistical 
analysis of different health measures. He provided numerous letters of recommendation from 
academics and experts in the field that support this characterization. Several reference writers noted 
the importance of statistical methods and models developed by the Petitioner, which are necessary in 
biostatistics in order to make accurate findings from the large amounts of data collected. 
a professor at the provided a letter stating the 
Petitioner's statistical models have been "eminently useful." He discussed how the Petitioner's work 
4 
.
Matter of L-C-
resulted in a profile of the Alzheimer's illness that "has been integral to improving our 
understanding of cognitive decline in the elderly by characterizing mental trajectories." 
an assistant professor at similarly described the 
importance of the Petitioner's research efforts and detailed how his specific methodology resulted in 
more reliable outcomes than traditional strategies. 
When considered in its totality, the evidence submitted supports a finding that the Petitioner 
possesses extraordinary ability. He has shown that he consistently produces articles that receive 
acclaim in the field, showing impact consistent with a researcher at the top of the field. The 
Petitioner has shown that his work has guided general health recommendations for Americans, 
suggesting influence that extends far beyond the field of biostatistics. The record therefore supports 
a finding that the Petitioner is an individual of extraordinary ability and that he therefore qualifies for 
the benefit sought. 
III. CONCLUSION 
A review of the totality of the evidence indicates that the Petitioner has sustained national or 
international acclaim and a level of expertise indicating that he is one of that small percentage who 
have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
Cite as Matter of L-C-, ID# 301811 (AAO May 5, 2017) 
5