sustained EB-1A Case: Medical Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 18039910 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : SEP . 13, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a researcher and professor in the medical science field, seeks classification as an 
individual of extraordinary ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(1 )(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. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Petitioner meets at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for 
this classification . The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence . See Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 
375 (AAO 2010) . Upon de nova review, we will sustain the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(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 the 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). 
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. USCIS, 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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner indicated that he was em lo ed as an associate rofessor in the 
department of biological sciences at .__ _____________________ __. m 
South Korea. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or 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). 
The Director determined that the Petitioner fulfilled two of the initial evidentiary criteria, judging the 
work of others in his field at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and authorship of scholarly articles at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). The Petitioner's documentary evidence indicates that he has peer reviewed 
manuscripts for professional journals such as Cell Chemical Biology and that he has served as a thesis 
and dissertation committee member at I I In addition, the Petitioner has authored scholarly 
articles in professional publications, including Cell and Science. Accordingly, we agree with the 
Director that the Petitioner fulfilled the judging and scholarly articles criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he also meets the criteria related to published materials and 
original contributions at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) and (v) and that he is otherwise eligible for the 
classification sought. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) calls for evidence of the individual's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, 
athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field. Most of the evidence 
submitted in support of this criterion relates to the Petitioner's investigations of the molecular 
mechanisms oti I in cells. 0 0 
2 
The record reflects that the Petitioner while workin as a researcher at 
an article titled 
Universit ublished 
" in Cell. The Petitioner explains that he "discovered how.__ _____ ~· .. are 
'-----------,,L-----, 
activated durin activation, which is an essential discovery to treat and better understand a 
large number o '-----~ diseases." He provided evidence that his article, for which he is credited 
as the first author, has been very highly cited by other researchers. 
We agree with the Petitioner's assertion that the Director did not give sufficient weight to detailed 
letters from experts that provided context regarding the importance of his research contributionsc=] 
I I o~ IUniversit ex lains that the findings the Petitioner published in Cell 
answered a long-standing question in th concerning the interaction of two 
different membrane proteins...,_ ______ ----,Jduring.__ _ __.activation. He emphasizes that "the 
answer to this question is very important and critical for many scientists . . . to understand the 
fundamental mechanism by which the I I can be activated, and to develop better and safer 
.__ _______ ~for patients." In addition, he further describes how the Petitioner's study has 
impacted research in the field . 
.,__ ______ ....,~f the University ofl I also discusses the Petitioner's research in the 
.__ _____ __.I field, crediting him with making several important discoveries that "advanced the 
boundaries" of the field and "propelled the field forward." In part, he notes that the Petitioner's 2009 
Cell article "has formed a focus for work by many groups in the past ten years to delineate thel I 
I J interaction, how it leads to I I and now naturally occurring mutations in 
I lcause human disease." I I further explains how the Petitioner's research has 
contributed to "uncovering fundamental mechanisms of howl I can be differentially 
regulated in different cells types," and "paving the way for development of drugs forl I I I diseases." 
The record reflects that, in addition to the very high rates of citation for his Cell article, the Petitioner 
has received international patents for technologies that build upon this foundational discovery. In 
addition, the Petitioner provided evidence of the article's influence by documenting ways in which 
other researchers have significantly relied on and built upon his research. 
When considered in its totality, the Petitioner has provided sufficient evidence to establish the nature 
and significance of his scientific contributions and has demonstrated that he satisfies the criterion at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). As the Petitioner has demonstrated that he satisfies at least three of the initial 
evidentiary criteria, we will evaluate the totality of the evidence in the context of the final merits 
determination below. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
Because the Petitioner submitted the requisite initial evidence, we will evaluate whether he has 
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, his sustained national or international acclaim and 
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 their 
3 
successes are sufficient to demonstrate that they have 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. 
The Petitioner received his doctor of philosophy in biochemistry fr~o_m....!l======r----------' 
University in 2003. Between 2004 and 2011, he was employed byl I University as a 
postdoctoral associate, research associate, and visiting professor in the Dlpartmrt of Neurobiology. 
He has since been employed in the Department of Biological Sciences at where he currently 
serves as an associate professor and principal researcher for investigations in thel I 
field funded by the National Research Foundation of Korea, the Ministry of Science, and the Korean 
Institute of Bioscience and Biotechnology. 
As discussed above, the record demonstrates that the Petitioner has made valuable contributions to the 
medical sciences field through his discoveries related to the mechanisms involved inl I I I and demonstrated that many other researchers have used this research as a foundation for 
their own important breakthroughs. The record contains evidence of the Petitioner's continued 
contributions and demonstrates that his discoveries have earned him sustained acclaim in this field. 
For example,! I Director and Head of Neuroscience Platforms atl 
!highlights the importance of the Petitioner's more recent paper, 
published in Chemistry and Biology. He explains that the Petitioner identified a compound called 
I I that modulates the function ofl las anl I and 
describes its importance as a potential drug candidate. The record shows that the Petitioner has 
received patents for this compound and that several pharmaceutical companies and laboratories are 
now synthesizing and selline I I for research applications worldwide. I I also 
discusses the significance of this research, emphasizing that the ~-----__. method the 
Petitioner used in his study to discover! l"broke new ground in the search for 
therapeutic ... modulators'~------------' proteins and offers important advantages over 
traditional drug discovery methods based on cell-based assays. 
In addition, lains that the Petitioner's lab a~ l"made the initial discovery of a 
............ ---------.--------,----' .. that is the first and only example of al I that 
inhibits store operate'-'L-__ ____.' rather thanl I them. He discusses the lsignifi:rce of this 
discovery and details how it has "has sparked new ideas about how alternative may shape 
~-----~that guide development of skeletal muscle and fat tissue." The expert opinions 
regarding the significance of these more recent discoveries are supported by evidence that the 
Petitioner's ongoing work at his I I laboratory continues to be influential in opening additional 
avenues for research and in efforts to develop a new class of~------~ therapies based on 
targeting thel I 
The record further reflects that Korean news agenc Newsis re orted on the Petitioner's discovery of 
th d its otential as a thera eutic in an article titled 
Another study published by the Petitioner in Science was the subject of a Korean media 
4 
article titled L-----------r----,_ ____________ _J The Petitioner is quoted 
in both articles as the head of the laboratory that published the findings, thus garnering him 
additional recognition for his work. 
Regarding scholarly articles, the record contains evidence that the Petitioner has authored a 
considerable number 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 his work has had on the field and whether such influence has been sustained. In this 
case, the Petitioner has offered a report reflecting thousands of citations to his published work, as well 
as evidence demonstrating that the rate at which his articles have been cited is very high for his field, 
and that several of his articles have been particularly influential. The record also reflects that he 
continues to publish scholarly articles in his field and to accumulate citations to his work at a sustained 
rate. Overall, the number of research articles he has coauthored, and their unusually high rate of 
citation are commensurate with being among the small percentage at the top of his field. 
The evidence shows that the Petitioner has obtained media coverage, patents, continuous research 
funding and significant attention from other experts in his field that is reflected in the citations to his 
work, as well as frequent invitations to present his work at national and international conferences in 
the United States, South Korea, and throughout Asia. In addition, he has received and completed 
independent requests to review a substantial number of manuscripts for renowned professional 
publications. These are all positive indications of the sustained acclaim he has received for his 
contributions. 
When considered in the aggregate with the evidence discussed above, the Petitioner has that his 
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 his 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 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, he has established 
that he intends to continue work in his area of extraordinary ability and that his entry will substantially 
benefit the United States. He therefore qualifies for classification as an individual of extraordinary 
ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
5