sustained EB-1A Case: Materials Chemistry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF R-A-V-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 11,2015 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a materials chemistry researcher, seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary 
ability" in the sciences. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) § 203(b )(1 )(A), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(l)(A). The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant 
visa petition. The matter is now before us on appeal. The appeal will be sustained. 
The classification the Petitioner seeks 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 documentation of a one-time achievement or evidence that meets at 
least three of the ten regulatory criteria. On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief. For the reasons 
discussed below, we find that the Petitioner meets the statutory and regulatory requirements for the 
classification sought. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
( 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 
(b)(6)
Matter of R-A-V-
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will 
substantially benefit prospectively the United States. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service 
(INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals 
seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 101 st Cong., 2d Sess. 59 
(1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to 
those individuals in that small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. !d.; 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The 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 ofher achievements in the field through evidence of 
a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If the petitioner does not 
submit this evidence, then she must submit sufficient qualifying evidence that meets at least three of the 
ten categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
The submission of evidence relating to at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, 
establish eligibility for this classification. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (91h Cir. 2010) 
(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 Rij"al v. 
USCIS, 772 F.Supp.2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011) (affirming USCIS' 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 USCIS appropriately applied the two-step review) ; Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 
at 376 (holding that the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its 
quality" and that 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 Criteri a 
The Petitioner earned her Ph.D. in Chemistry from _ . in India in 2007. 
Currently, she is working in the Thermochemistry Laboratory at the 
We find that the petitioner 's evidence meets the following three categories of 
evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of R-A-V-
Evidence qf the alien 's participation , either individually or on a panel, as ajudge qf the 
work of others in the same or an allied field of specification for which class(fication is 
sought. 
The Petitioner submitted documentation showing that she served as a peer reviewer for multiple 
journals such as Accordingly, the 
evidence supports the Director 's finding that the Petitioner meets this regulatory criterion . 
Evidence of the alien's original scientffic , scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions qf major sign(jicance in the field. 
The director determined that the Petitioner did not establish eligibility for this criterion. The plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires "[e]vidence of the alien's original 
scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the 
field." A review of the record of proceeding reflects that the Petitioner submitted sufficient 
documentary evidence establishing that she meets the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v). Therefore , the Director 's determination on this issue will be withdrawn. 
The Petitioner submitted letters of support from experts in the field discussing the significance of her 
original research contributions. The experts ' statements do not merely reiterate the regulatory 
language of this criterion, they describe how the Petitioner's scientific contributions are both original 
and of major significance in the field. For example, Senior Research Scientist, 
_ Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory, observed that the Petitioner's original 
work concerning surface enthalpy, enthalpy of water adsorption, and 
has been extensively cited by others in the field and provides an 
"important contribution for establishing limits under which zirconia nanoparticles can be used." 
Professor in the Departments of Physics and Chemistry, 
stated that the Petitioner's article in -
reported "the first energetic measurement on biogenic amorphous carbonate and has profound 
implication to [sic] biomineralization field." The Petitioner submitted a Google Scholar citation 
report reflecting 99 cites to the aforementioned article since 2010. stated: 
Geological sequestration of has a greater potential to store large quantities of 
and could be a critical solution to control the climate change effects on global 
environment. .. . [The petitioner 's] outstanding research at _ 
has contributed to address the major 
technological knowledge gaps in thermodynamic aspects of the molecular and 
nanoscale non-equilibrium processes involving nanoparticles , mineral surface 
dynamics, microbiota on mineral dissolution/precipitation , nanoscale confinement 
that control subsurface sequestration. The research performed [by the 
petitioner] at also address[ es] the key US DOE [Department of Energy] needs 
in atmospheric , earth, environmental , and energy science. 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of R-A-V-
Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering , University of 
discussed the Petitioner's "pioneering experiments on using LDHs [Layered Double Hydroxides] as 
precursors for nanospinel oxide syntheses" and indicated that they provided "valuable sources of 
information needed for the design and control of more efficient and cost effective low temperature 
techniques for the large scale production of nanospinels." 
Chief Scientist for Materials Synthesis and Simulation Across Scales at 
Laboratory, and Affiliate Professor of Materials Science and Engineering at the 
University of stated that the Petitioner "developed a crucial synthetic and calorimetric 
methodology to study the thermodynamics " of various materials. In addition, noted 
that the Petitioner's research findings concerning amorphous calcium carbonate "have contributed 
greatly to the ability to predict the best 
cap rock environments for preventing carbon dioxide leakage." also commented that 
the Petitioner's results are "having widespread impact as they provide a fundamental knowledge of 
[the] carbonate crystal growth mechanism for other scientists working in the fields of crystal growth 
and biomineralization. " 
Professor and Chair in Chemistry of Solids-Energy, 
indicated that the Petitioner "has achieved a breakthrough in research associated with material 
stability driven synthesis control over polymorphism and practical applications of lithium 
polyanionic battery materials" and that her "work has implications for the US DOE [ needs, and 
energy security." 
Professor, School of Eatih Sciences, University, stated that the 
Petitioner 's thermodynamic studies "have shown the existence of amorphous and nano-phase 
precursors that can help in crystallization of calcium, iron, calcium-magnesium solid solution, and 
manganese carbonates by providing lower energy pathways" and that "the technique she developed 
can now also be applied to related amorphous materials." With regard to the Petitioner's research 
concerning structural disorders in LDHs, explained that the Petitioner "developed a 
structural analysis protocol to identify different types of stacking disorders." In addition, 
asserted that the Petitioner's structural analysis protocol "can be applied not just to LDHs, but to 
numerous other compound[s] related to environmental systems" and that her methodology "will be 
used by many other scientists working in the field." 
Significantly, in support of the experts' statements , the Petitioner submitted documentation from 
Google Scholar showing more than six hundred cites to her published findings. In addition to the 
volume of cites, the content of the citations reveal that other researchers have not only referenced the 
petitioner's work, but expanded on it. For example, a 2011 article in by an 
independent research team cites the petitioner 's work as identifying values that are characteristic of 
amorphous calcium carbonate. These citations are persuasive evidence that help support a 
conclusion that the petitioner's work is familiar to and has influenced other researchers. This 
evidence corroborates the experts' statements that the Petitioner has made original contributions of 
major significance in her field that go well beyond merely adding to the general pool of knowledge 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of R-A-V-
as all original research does. The submitted documentation shows that the petitioner's contributions 
are important not only to the institutions where she has worked, but throughout the greater field as 
well. Leading researchers have acknowledged the value of the Petitioner's work and its major 
significance in the field. Accordingly, given all of the evidence in the aggregate, the Petitioner has 
established 
that she meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
The Petitioner submitted evidence of her authorship of scholarly articles in numerous professional 
journals including and ~ 
Accordingly, the evidence supports the director's finding that the Petitioner meets 
this regulatory criterion. 
B. Summary 
The Petitioner has submitted the requisite initial evidence, in this case, evidence that satisfies 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[ir] field of endeavor," 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2); and (2) "that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her 
achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act; 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). See also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 
In the present matter, the Petitioner has submitted extensive documentation of her achievements in 
the materials chemistry field 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 sufficient to demonstrate the Petitioner's sustained national and international 
acclaim as a researcher and that her 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 peer reviewed articles for multiple 
journals. Furthetmore, the Petitioner authored a substantial number of articles in distinguished journals 
and conference proceedings that have garnered an unusually large number of citations, some of which 
apply and build upon her work. 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). Moreover, the 
Petitioner submitted reference letters from independent experts in the field, detailing her specific 
contributions and explaining how those contributions are of major significance in her field. For 
example, after discussing examples of the Petitioner's specific achievements and their 
impact on the field, states that her "groundbreaking research accomplishments have national 
significance for applied materials science, environmental science and fundamental thermodynamics" 
5 
Matter of R-A-V-
and that the Petitioner has "extraordinary skills in structure and chemical thermodynamic research." 
While we need not accept unsupported conclusory assertions, 1 the evidence of record, including 
evidence not discussed in this decision, supports these conclusions. 
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 her 
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 her field of expertise. 
The Petitioner has established that she seeks to continue working in the same field in the United 
States. The Petitioner has established that her entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. Therefore, the Petitioner has established eligibility for the benefit 
sought under section 203 of the Act. 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013). Here, that burden has been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
Cite as Matter of R -A-V-, ID# 13188 (AAO Sept. 11, 20 15) 
1 
See 1756, Inc. v. The Attorney General of the United States, 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990).