sustained EB-1A Case: Chemistry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
?v1ATTER OF Z-L-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. 4, 2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a research scientist, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in 
the sciences. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 115J(b)( I )(A). This ftrst 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 Acting Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for 
Alien Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had satisfied three of the initial evidentiary criteria but 
that he had not demonstrated the requisite acclaim or shown that he is one of that small percentage at 
the very top of the tield of endeavor. On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
argues that he has established eligibility for this classification. 
Upon de novo review, we will sustain the appeal. 
l. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act states: 
Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph i r-
(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 111 the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benelit prospectively the 
United States. 
.
.Hatter of Z-L-
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only t~ 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 awnrds, 
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 it demonstrates that the standards at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not readily apply to a beneficiary's occupation. 
Satistaction of at least three criteri~, however, does not, in and of itseW establish eligibility for this 
classification. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 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 Visim·caia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 
126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rlja! v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.O. Wash. 2011), qffd, 683 
F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Marter ofChawathe, 25 f&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 is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Background 
The Petitioner is a research scientist in the specialized 1ield of chemistry, the study of 
chemical compounds containing al least one chemical bond between a carbon atom of an organic 
molecule and a metal. He currently works for focusing on the 
synthesis or a series of honnonc derivatives that work as In this role, he 
is responsible f(Jr developing new synthetic reactions f(Jr pharmaceutical molecule production and 
demonstrating mechanistic rel~tions between molecular structures and studied chemical properties. 
As he 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). ln denying 
the petition, the Director found that the Petitioner met the criteria for judging, authorship of 
scholarly articles, and contributions of major significance to the field, 
1 
and we agree with those 
detenninations. The Director then conducted a final merits analysis finding that the Petitioner had 
1 See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). (vi ). and (v), respectively. 
2 
.
Marter ofZ-L-
not demonstra ted achievements indicating he is one of that small percentage at the very top of the 
field of endeavor. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that his research accomplishments and the 
commercialization of hi§ inventions render him eligible for the benefit sought and that the Director's 
decision reflects "arbitrary and vague standards of review in the final merits determination process." 
B. Final Merits Detennination 
As the record satisfies three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), we will 
analyze the Petitioner's accomplishm ents and weigh the totality of the evidence to determine if his 
successes are sufficient to demon strate that he has extraordinary ability in the field of endeavor. We 
eval uate whether he has demonstrated , by a preponderance of the evidenc e, that he h as sustained 
national or international acclaim and that his achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation, making him o·ne of the small percentage who have risen to the very top of 
the fteld of endeavor. See section 203(b)(l )(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R . § 204.5(hX2), (3); see also 
Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. In the present matter, the Petitioner has shown his eligibilit y for this 
classification . The Petitioner has offered proof showing his pioneering research and the impact that 
it has had on the organometallic chemistry field, letters from experts in his Held, data on the prestige 
related to journals that published his work and his citation rates compared to others \Vithin his field, 
and evidence ofthe commercialization of his inventions. 
We evaluate the significance of the Petitioner ' s judging experience to determine if such evidence is 
indicative of his extraordinary abilily as required for this high1y restrictive classification. 
See Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1121-22. Here, the record documents that he has received and completed 
independent requests to review a substantial number of manuscripts for multiple highly ranked 
professional publications including 
We find this experience , together with 
the achievements described belov.', to be consistent with a determination that the Petitioner is among 
the small percentage at the top of his field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2 ). 
With respect to his scholarly articles, the· Petitioner has provided evidence of his authorship of a 
con siderable amount of published mat erial that appeared in professional journal s, inclllding multiple 
articles in In addition, the record 
includes evidence that the Petitioner's work was selected and highlighted on the journal cover of 
the leading peer-reviewed journal in the field of organometallic chemistry. As 
authoring scholarly articles is inherent to scientists and researchers , the citation history or other 
eviden ce of the inlluence of the Petitioner' s articles is an importimt indicator of the impact and 
recognitio n that his work has had on the field and whether such influence has been sustained. In this 
case, the Petitioner has offered extensive evidence that his articles in and 
have garnered an unusually high number of citations for his tield, and that his other 
work has also been highly cited. 
Further, the record includes numerous examp les of citing works that highlight the Petitioner's 
research or discuss it at length, as opposed to merely referencing it in passing . Even after the filing 
.
Matter ofZ-L-
of this appeal; his work continues to be c ited at a l evel commensurate with sustained acclaim at th~ 
top ofhis field and the record includes doc wnenrat ion showing that his articles are among the most 
highly viewed articles in the tield often in the top of all scholarsh ip. As such, the Petitioner has 
establi shed that his publicatio n reco rd sets him apart through a "career of acclaimed work 1n the 
field." See H. Rep.l\o. 10 1-723, at 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). 
The record also includes several recommendations from experts in the field applaud ing the 
Petitioner's discover ies and attesting to the significance of his research . 2 For exa mpl e, 
professor of chemistry and direct or of the at the comments 
that the Pet itioner's work places him in the "top of all researcher s in his tie ld and that his 
cont ributi ons .. have provok ed widespr ead commenta ry in the contex t of pharmace utical synt hesis 
and renewable energy." He further scares that the Peti tioner' s work "is acclai med by fellow 
researc her s a ll over the world." ch ief scie ntist with the 
agrees that the Petition er's work in hydrogen stora ge and deve loping new syn thetic 
methodologies has rendered him "one of the few preeminent engi neers ·at the very top of his field :" 
Severa l recommen ders also comment that the Petitioner' s development of. a clean method of turning 
gree nhouse gas into hydrog en fuel is signifi cant because he found a \Nay to produce hydrog en while 
also recyding harmful carbon dioxide through the This is the tirst 
cataly st that releases hydr ogen without generating addi tional environment al poll utants . 
of the cal ls his work ''stunning '' and recog nize s him as "an 
author ity in the field." Finally , professo r and director of hydrocarbon 
chemistry at the states that the catalytic syste m devel oped by the 
Petiti oner is the "best up-to-date homog eneous system for selective hydrogen release from 
and "a very import ant technol ogical advance" that is a "gia nt step toward 0:1-demand hydrogen 
release techno logy." 
Fina lly, the reco rd include s ample documentary evidence support ing the aforementioned references'· 
statements regardin g the origina lity of the Petitioner' s work and its significance to the field as a 
whole. In. addition to the cxtens i ve citation s to his article s, he provi ded intellectua l property 
documents identifyi ng him as an inventor on several patents, evidence of the commerc ialization of 
his inventions,=· and statement s from numero us experts in the field continning tha t they are directly 
using his work to· further their own. 
In summary, the Petitioner has demonstrated his extraordinary ability. The tota lity of the evidence 
establis hes that he possesse s a level of expertise that is cons istent with a ftnd ing that he is one of a 
small percentage at the very top of the tield of endeavor and that he has documented sustained 
2 
We discuss only a sampling of these letters, but have reviewed and considered each one. 
3 For example, senior r esearch chemist with provided an independent 
evaluation of the Petitioner's work commenting that he was the first scientist to develop a bifunctional ruthenium 
cata lyst for which was later patented and develope d commerci ally by He 
states ·that his own company uses this catalyst (and its corresponding patent) to prepare amines because the "catalyst is 
highly efficient and reactive, resulting in high yields of the desired products and easy work-up steps." 
4. 
Mauer ofZ-L-
acclaim. See section 203(b)(I)(A) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 
1119-20. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has shown that he meets at least three of the evidentiary criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). He has also demonstrated sustained national and international acclaim and that 
his achievements have been recognized through extensive documentation. Finally, the Petitioner has 
indicated that he intends to continue working in his area of expertise. He therefore qualifies for 
classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
Cite as Matter o(Z-L-, ID# 1034540 (AAO Apr. 4, 2018) 
5