sustained EB-1A Case: Microbiology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 25483327 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 08, 2023 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a researcher in the field of microbiology, seeks classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U .S.C. 
§ l l 53(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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that although the record 
established that the Petitioner satisfied the initial evidentiary requirements for this classification , he 
did not demonstrate, as required, that he has sustained national or international acclaim and is among 
the small percentage at the very top of his field. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will sustain the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to aliens 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 
international 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 criteria 
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). 
TI. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner received his doctor of philosophy in human pathology and infectious diseases from 
[ l University in 2018. Since 2019 he has been employed by Universit 
l I as a postdoctoral research fellow in the Department of Bioengineering's 
I . 
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 concluded that the Petitioner met three of these ten criteria 
and the record supports this determination. The Petitioner's documented service as a peer reviewer 
for professional journals constitutes participation as a judge of the work of others in the same or allied 
field under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). The Petitioner has also authored scholarly articles in 
professional publications in his field and therefore meets the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Finally, the Director determined that Petitioner has provided sufficient evidence to establish the nature 
and significance of his scientific contributions in the field and has demonstrated that he satisfies the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). The record reflects that the Petitioner's culturomics approach 
atl I lab represents an original contribution of major significance in the area of gut 
microbiome research that has greatly aided other researchers in the field and resulted in promising 
therapeutic products. Because 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. 
2 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the Petitioner submitted the reqms1te initial evidence, we will evaluate whether he has 
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he has 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 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. We conclude that the Petitioner has demonstrated his eligibility for 
this classification. 
As discussed above, the record establishes that the Petitioner has made valuable contributions to the 
microbiology field through his novel approach to culturing the human microbiome and discoveries 
related to bacteriotherapy development, and it shows that many other researchers have used his 
research as a foundation for their own important breakthroughs. The record further contains evidence 
of the Petitioner's continued contributions and demonstrates that his discoveries have earned him 
sustained acclaim in this field. 
For example, Professor! the Petitioner's doctoral advisor, explains that the Petitioner's 
work enhanced bacterial identification in hospital and clinical settings by providing the mass spectra 
of all isolated organisms to the I I database, a bacterial identification system, greatly 
improving the speed identification of bacterial organisms. I a researcher at the 
University of utilized a novel bacterial strain isolated and described by the Petitioner to 
identify a novel microbiome signature of type 2 diabetes mellitus specific to Pakistani adults. 
I I a microbiologist and senior research scientist at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 
described how he applied the Petitioner's culturomics approach to isolate representative microbial 
cohorts, including new species, in the gastrointestinal tract of pigs and broiler chickens to explore their 
therapeutic otential. a professor of immunology biology at the 
Universit and Coordinator of the European I network and the 
French _____ networks, asserts that the Petitioner's new method of culturomics and mass 
spectrometry-based identification of bacteria "revolutionized the field and launched the deep 
characterization of the human micro biota, supporting the development of live biotherapeutics to treat 
diseases or boost immunological responses to immune checkpoint inhibitors." While we need not 
accept unsupported conclusory assertions, 1 the evidence of record, including evidence not discussed 
in this decision, supports these conclusions. 
Director ofl lab and the Petitioner's direct supervisor, states 
that the Petitioner was recruited to join based on his novel approaches to culturing known and 
previously uncultured bacterial species from the human microbiome. He explains that the Petitioner's 
work in human microbiome construction has helped to decipher what has been known to scientists as 
microbial "dark matter," organisms that microbiologists are unable to culture in the laboratory due to 
1 See 1756, Inc. v. The Attorney General of the United States. 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
3 
lack of knowledge or ability to supply the required growth conditions, and he has discovered novel 
bacterial organisms never cultured before nor known to have existed as part of the human commensal 
microflora. His work has helped establish an innovative culturomics platform capable of creating a 
defined bacterial community from human fecal material to treat specific diseases. For example, 
lab is using those microbial communities to manufacture the therapeutic product 
material to treat malnutrition in lactating mothers and children and has 
received grant funding from the _______ Foundation for upcoming clinical trials. 
I J emphasizes that the Petitioner designed all culturomics experiments needed to isolate and 
purify the needed organisms for those products, executed and managed the platform, and was pivotal 
in attracting grant funding. The Petitioner is also collaborating with to help melanoma 
cancer patients who are non-responsive to cancer treatments by creating defined microbial complexes 
that optimize their gut health to enhance their response to commonly used immunotherapy. His 
resultant therapeutic productJ I has had a favorable response in the first round of experiments 
in mice. I I states that other prestigious institutes have requested products designed from 
the Petitioner's bacterial communities for their own research develo ment including I __ 
University. University of _____________________ University, and 
I University, further reflecting the national recognition the Petitioner has earned for his 
work in the field and its continuing influence in opening additional avenues for research. 
Regarding scholarly articles, the record contains evidence that the Petitioner has authored a significant 
number of articles 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 offered a Google Scholar report 
reflecting a substantial number of citations to his published work, and that several of his articles have 
been particularly influential. Overall, the number of research articles he has coauthored and their 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 significant attention from other experts in his field 
that is reflected in the citations to his work, has continued to publish scholarly articles in distinguished 
professional journals, has received invitations to present his work at international conferences, and has 
completed independent requests to review a number of manuscripts for renowned professional 
publications. These are all positive indications of the sustained acclaim he has received for his 
contributions. 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 his field. 
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. 
4 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
5