sustained EB-1A Case: Nanotechnology

MATTER OF L-C-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 16, 2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a nanotechnology 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 Acting Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for 
Alien Worker, concluding that although the Petitioner satisfied three of the regulatory criteria, he did 
not show sustained national or international acclaim and demonstrate that he is am.ong the small 
percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief asserting that he has sustained the required acclaim and has 
risen to the very top of his field. 
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 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 
.
Matier of L-C-
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
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). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)( 4) allows a petitioner to submit comparable material if he or she is able to demonstrate 
that the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not readily apply to his or her occupation. 
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). 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." Mauer ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner was working as a postdoctoral research scholar in the Department 
of Materials Science and Engineering at As the 
Petitioner has not indicated or established that he has received a major, internationally recognized 
award, he must satisfy at least three of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) to meet the 
initial evidentiary requirements. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
The Acting Director found that the Petitioner·met the judging, original contributions, and scholarly 
articles criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), (v), and (vi), respectively. His documentary 
evidence indicates that he has peer reviewed manuscripts for multiple journals, demonstrated 
original contributions of major significance in the field, and authored scholarly articles that have 
appeared in professional publications. For example, the record shows that the Petitioner edited 
articles for Nanoscale Research Letters and Nanotechnology. In addition, he has made original 
scientific contributions to stretchable electronics that are of major significance in the nanotechnology 
field. Lastly, he has authored articles in professional publications such as Scientific Reports and 
Nano Letters. Accordingly, the record supports the Acting Director's finding that the Petitioner has 
satisfied at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. 
2 
.
Maller of L-C-
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the record satisfies at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x); we will 
analyze the Petitioner's accomplishments and weigh the totality of the evidence to determine if his 
successes are sufficient to demonstrate that he has extraordinary ability in the field of endeavor. We 
evaluate whether he has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he has sustained 
national or international acclaim and that his achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation, making him one of the small percentage who have risen to the very top of 
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. In the present matter, the Petitioner has shown his eligibility for this 
classification. 
The Petitioner received his doctorate in condensed matter physics from the 
(20 I 4) and later worked as a postdoctoral researcher in the Department of Electrical and 
Computer Engineering at He has most recently worked as a postdoctoral 
research scholar at · since June 2017. 
With respect to his scholarly articles, the Petitioner has provided evidence of his authorship of a 
considerable amount of published material that appeared 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 from Google Scholar reflecting more than one thousand 
. . 
citations to his published work from 2011 to present, as well as evidence documenting that the rate at 
which his articles have been cited is very high for his field. The number of research articles he has 
authored and their unusually high rate of citation are commensurate with being at the very top of the 
field and demonstrate that his publication record sets him apart through a "career of acclaimed work 
in the field." See H. Rep. No. 101-723, at 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). 
The influence of the Petitioner's research is further evidenced through independent recommendation 
letters that identify his original contributions in developing carbon nanotube-enabled, highly 
stretchable electronics as well as fully-printed flexible and stretchable electronics, and that explain 
how those advancements have significantly impacted his field. For ·example, 
protessor of materials science and engineering, biomedical engineering, and neurological surgery at 
attests that the Petitioner's work has "contributed significantly to the 
understanding of how to develop printed electronics for fulfilling real-world applications in the areas 
of wearable electronics, smart-packages, and soft robotics." further explains that "the 
stretchable strain sensors [the Petitioner] developed have applications that include wearable health 
monitoring systems, a major boon to the healthcare sector." In addition, describes the 
Petitioner's successful fabrication of "fully-printed carbon nanotube-based stretchable logic gates" 
as "a major leap forward" in the design of stretchable electronics applications. 
3 
.
Mauer of l-C-· 
In his letter of support, professor of mechanical engineering at 
indicates that the Petitioner's "breakthrough findings related to printable electronics that 
are both flexible and stretchable have greatly expanded the field's capabilities while advancing us 
considerably toward the realization of wearable electronics that fulfill critical applications." 
Furthermore, professor of materials science and engineering at 
asserts that the Petitioner's "research on carbon nanotube structures has provided the 
foundation for many subsequent scientists in the areas of stretchable electronics, such as strain 
sensors." 
Importantly, we find the record includes ample . documentary evidence supporting the 
aforementioned independent references' statements regarding the Petitioner's standing in the field 
and the significance and originality of his work. In addition to the extensive number of citations to 
his articles, he provides documentation showing that his work has been widely utilized by other 
research organizations. 
With regard to his participation as a judge of others' work, the record indicates that the Petitioner has 
received and completed independent requests to review a substantial number of manuscripts for 
many top-ranked professional publications. We find the Petitioner's judging experience, together 
with the achievements described above, to be consistent with a determination that he is among the 
small percentage at the top of his field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
In summary, the Petitioner has demonstrated his extraordinary ability. The totality of the evidence 
establishes that he possesses a level of expertise that is consistent with a finding that he is one of a 
small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor and that he has documented sustained 
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 established that he meets at least three of the eyidentiary criteria listed at 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.S(h)(J)(i)-(x). He has also demonstrated sustained national and international acclaim and that 
his achievements have been recognized through extensive documentation. Lastly, the Petitioner has 
shown 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 (i L-C-, ID# I 685631 (AAO Oct. 16, 2018) 
4