sustained EB-1A Case: Materials Science

MATTER OF M-S-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 31, 2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a postdoctoral researcher, 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. 
§ 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 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had shown that she met only two of the ten initial evidentiary 
criteria, of which she must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and contends that she meets three criteria. 
Upon de nova review, 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 m 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 two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
Matter of M-S-
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate a one-time achievement (that is a major, 
internationally recognized award). Alternatively, he or she must provide documentation that meets 
at least three of the ten categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items 
such as awards, memberships, and published material in certain media). 
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) 
( 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.D. Wash. 2011). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we 
examine "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." Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
IL ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a postdoctoral researcher in the field of materials science. As she has not 
established that she has received a major, internationally recognized award, she must satisfy at least 
three of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
In denying the petition, the Director found that she met two criteria: participation as a judge of the 
work of others under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and authorship of scholarly articles under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). We find that the evidence in the record sufficiently supports these conclusions 
based on her work as a peer reviewer and her authorship of scholarly articles. 
The Director found that the Petitioner had not established that she met the criterion requiring original 
contributions of major significance under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), noting that her citation history 
does not reach the level of citations, numbering in the thousands, that the top scientists in the field 
have attained. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that her citation history should not be the 
determining factor of the significance of her contributions. We agree. We note that the Director's 
comparison of her citations to those of other scientists or researchers in her field is generally not 
appropriate in determining whether she has made original contributions of major significance in the 
field. Instead, the evaluation of her citations to others in her field is more relevant in a final merits 
determination demonstrating her sustained national or international acclaim, that she is one of the 
small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, and that her achievements have been 
recognized in the field through extensive documentation. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2)-(3). 
2 
.
Matter of M-S-
While the comparison of one's citation history to others in the field is more relevant to the final 
merits determination as to whether she has sustained acclaim, the substance of the findings noted by 
other researchers who cite the Petitioner is relevant to whether her contributions are of major 
significance in the field. With respect to contributions in cancer research, 
Associate Professor of Pharmaceutical Sciences at the and a specialist in drug 
delivery for cancer treatments, states that "one of [the Petitioner's] most prolific works has been her 
investigation of nano- and micro-structured materials for their use in targeted anti-cancer drug 
delivery." He references the influence of her research by stating, "After learning of [the Petitioner's] 
strategies to improve cancer drug delivery with gold nanoparticles, cited her work as a 
significant source of information in their own study of gold nanoparticles." adds, 
"These scholars used [her] curcumin-conjugated gold nanoparticle method, noting its progress in 
improving targeted cancer therapy." He states that other researchers have relied upon her research 
regarding "her conjugation of water soluble curcumin to metallic nanoparticles, and how this process 
enhances curcumin-based cancer treatment opportunities." 
The record reflects that other researchers have further developed these findings. For example, the 
authors in an article published in the journal extensively cite the Petitioner's 
findings regarding hyaluronic acid conjugate to enhance curcumin delivery. In one paragraph they 
discuss the Petitioner's research "to improve the solubility and stability of curcumin," noting that 
"[i]ncreasing the amount of conjugated curcumin would lead to enhanced therapeutic potency 
towards cancer cells." 
, Professor in the Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences at the 
similarly states that other researchers "have cited [the Petitioner's] development of gold 
nanoparticles with a hyaluronic acid-curcumin and a folic acid-polyethylene glycol conjugate, noting 
the efficiency of these nanoparticles' targeting abilities in comparison to free curcumin." He then 
adds that these researchers "used her developments to design a cancer drug delivery platform with 
polysaccharide-gold nanocluster supramolecular conjugates." He also states, have 
adopted [the Petitioner's] methods in order to investigate the degradation kinetics of their hyaluronic 
acid-based nanogel drug conjugates." He further asserts, "Such direct uses of [her] research 
highlight the novelty and uniqueness of her findings." 
Regarding this publication from counsel states that "this group utilized [her] results in the 
introduction of their work, and they modified her hyaluronic acid-curcumin conjugate micelle 
slightly for use [in] in vivo applications." This publication in the record indicates that the final 
treatment "resulted in up to 13-fold tumor suppression, making this nanodrug a potential candidate 
for cancer prevention and therapeutic treatment." Counsel further asserts, "This group used [her] 
hyaluronic acid-curcumin conjugate as a foundational element of their work." We find that this 
assertion is supported by the evidence in the record. Accordingly, the Petitioner has established that 
her cancer research is of major significance and is being utilized by other researchers to design 
cancer drug delivery mechanisms and to improve the ability of delivering curcumin to target cancer 
cells. 
3 
.
Matter of M-S-
We find that the record establishes that the Petitioner meets the contributions of major significance 
criterion through her cancer research. Accordingly, as the Petitioner meets three of the ten criteria 
listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), we will evaluate the totality of the evidence in the context of the 
final merits determination below. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the Petitioner has submitted the requisite initial evidence, we will evaluate whether she has 
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that she has sustained national or international 
acclaim and is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, and that her 
achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. 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. In 
this matter, we determine that the Petitioner has shown her eligibility for this classification. 
Under judging, the record reflects that the Petitioner has received and completed independent 
requests to review a substantial number of manuscripts for renowned professional publications. We 
find the Petitioner's judging experience, together with the achievements described below, to be 
consistent with a determination that she is among the small percentage at the top of her field of 
endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
For original contributions of major significance, states that the Petitioner's 
research "has been essential to that of many independent scholars , and has valuably added to 
materials science research in the biomedical disciplines." He cites the Petitioner's development of 
magnetic and gold nanoparticles "in order to increase the amount of cargo delivered to targeted sites 
of cancer and to increase the length of delivery." As discussed above, the record demonstrates that 
she has further developed this area of expertise and that many other researchers have used her 
research as a foundation for their own important breakthroughs. 
Beyond her cancer research, the Petitioner has also received acclaim for her work with intra-ocular 
lenses. The record contains two letters from Assistant Professor for the 
Department of Craniofacial Biology at the The first letter states that the 
Petitioner "implemented basic photopolymerization techniques to develop multiple cost-effective 
polymer IOL formulations" with an inexpensive production method that is "immensely valuable to 
the medical and eye care industries." then states that the filed a 
patent on her research and "has expressed interest in commercializing the IOL formulations." 
The second letter from further states that the Petitioner "played an instrumental role in the 
development of patented copolymer formulations for ophthalmic lenses which has since received an 
industrial grant from , a subset of and a leader in eye care solutions." further 
states that her contribution "was pivotal in obtaining further funding towards developing the IOLs" 
and that "[h]er efforts have been instrumental to the success of this project, and the grant from 
facilitated further studies into polymer-based IOL lenses to ultimately benefit patient health." 
4 
Matter of M-S-
Obtaining patents and research funding are positive indications of her sustained acclaim and help 
demonstrate, together with the other evidence in the record, that she has risen to the top of her field. 
Regarding scholarly articles, the record contains evidence that the Petitioner has authored a 
considerable amount of articles that were published in distinguished professional journals. As 
authoring scholarly articles is inherent to scientists and researchers, the citation history or other 
evidence of the influence of the Petitioner's articles is an important indicator of the impact and 
recognition that her work has had on the field and whether such influence has been sustained. In this 
case, the Petitioner has offered a report reflecting hundreds of citations to her published work from 
2010 to the present, as well as evidence demonstrating that the rate at which her articles have been 
cited is very high for her field. The record also reflects that she continues to publish scholarly 
articles in her field. Overall, the number of research articles she has coauthored and their unusually 
high rate of citation are commensurate with being at the very top of the field. 
When considered in the aggregate with the evidence discussed above, the Petitioner has 
demonstrated that her achievements are reflective of a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as 
contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). We conclude that the 
record supports a finding that the Petitioner is among the small percentage at the top of her field of 
endeavor with sustained national or international acclaim. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2)-(3). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has shown that she meets at least three of the evidentiary criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). She has also demonstrated sustained national and international acclaim and that 
her achievements have been recognized through extensive documentation. She therefore qualifies 
for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
Cite as Matter of M-S-, ID# 1645697 (AAO Oct. 31, 2018) 
5