sustained EB-1A Case: Neuroscience

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF S-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 28,2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a postdoctoral research associate in the field of neuroscience, 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)(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 
Petitioner satisfied the initial regulatory criteria, of which he must meet at least three, he did not 
show sustained national or international acclaim nor demonstrate that he is among the small 
percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits an additional document and a brief, arguing that the Director's 
findings were erroneous. 
Upon de novo review, we will sustain the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act describes qualified immigrants for this classification as follows: 
(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. 
.
Matter ofS-
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 
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 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. 201 0). 1 
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 of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a research associate employed by As he has not 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). 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
In denying the petition, the Director found that although the Petitioner met the judging criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), the contributions of major significance criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v), and the authorship of scholarly articles criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), he 
did not demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he has sustained national or 
international acclaim and is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. We 
concur that the evidence in the record indicates that he has reviewed manuscripts for several 
journals, authored articles that have appeared in professional publications, and made original 
contributions of major significance. Accordingly, we will evaluate the totality of his documentary 
evidence in the context of the final merits determination below. 
1 This case discusses 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); Rijalv. USCJS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.O. Wash. 2011). 
2 
.
Matter ofS-
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the Petitioner has submitted the requisite initial evidence, we will evaluate whether the Petitioner 
has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he has sustained national or international 
acclaim and 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, \Ve analyze a 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. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2)-(3); see also Kazarian, 
596 F .3d at 1119-20. In this matter, the Petitioner has shown his eligibility for the classification. 
The record indicates that the Petitioner received his Ph.D. degree in neuroscience from the 
in 2011 and is employed as a research associate at 
He focuses on investigating how the brain represents abstract 
information and how consciousness affects such representation. As mentioned above, the Petitioner 
has reviewed manuscripts, authored scholarly articles, and made original contributions of major 
significance in the field of neuroscience. 
Regarding the Beneficiary's service as a peer reviewer, an evaluation of the significance of his 
judging experience is appropriate to determine if such evidence is indicative of the extraordinary 
ability required for this highly restrictive classification. See Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1121-22. 
Participation in the peer review process does not automatically demonstrate that an individual has 
sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of his field. Here, however, the record 
indicates that the Petitioner has received and completed independent requests to review a substantial 
number of manuscripts for numerous professional publications including the 
and The record thus indicates that he is 
among that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). 
With regard to the Petitioner's authorship of scholarly articles, he presented evidence of his 
considerable amount of published material that appeared in professional journals, including 
numerous articles in the an official journal of the 
In addition, the record includes abstracts and proceedings from his presentations at professional 
conferences. As authoring scholarly articles is often inherent to the work of scientists and 
researchers, the citation history or other evidence of the influence of his articles is an important 
indicator to determine the impact and recognition that his work has had on the field and whether 
such influence has been sustained. See Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1122. For example, numerous 
independent citations to an article authored by the Petitioner would support a finding that other 
researches have recognized and been influenced by her work. On the other hand, few or no citations 
to an article authored by the Petitioner may indicate that his work has gone largely unnoticed by his 
field. 
3 
.
Matter C?f S-
In the case here, the Petitioner has offered evidence that his published material is frequently and 
consistently cited, and presents evidence on appeal to demonstrate that his work continues to be cited 
at a level commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim at the top of his field. As 
such, he has established that his publication record, as well as his presentations, sets him apart 
through a "career of acclaimed work in the field." See H. Rep. No. 101-723, at 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). 
Further, he submitted evidence demonstrating that he co-authored a chapter for the reference book 
entitled and noted that his chapter covers the entire history of 
research into the question of how context influences the neural responses in visual processing 
regions of the brain. The Petitioner further claims that this book is "highly prestigious" and that "a 
small group of top researchers" were selected to write the chapters in their niche field. A letter from 
Professor of Ophthalmology and Visual Science at the his 
co-author on this chapter, corroborates these statements, noting that she chose the Petitioner to be 
her co-author based on the outstanding research he performed under her while previously \Vorking in 
her laboratory. 
The record further demonstrates that the Petitioner presented his work in the field at the 2016 
as well as the 
meeting that same year. He submitted a letter from Professor of Neuroscience at 
and Investigator of the who stated that the 
Petitioner currently works in his laboratory on two major projects, and they presented his results 
together at the aforementioned conferences. stated that the Petitioner's results "were 
well received" at these conferences, noting that garners approximately 30,000 attendees. He 
further states that the Petitioner 's "research on unraveling the physiology and pathology of higher 
brain function extends beyond his present projects and therefore is of national concern," noting that 
his research "will continue to facilitate the development of a new diagnostic and treatment options 
for patients with a variety of disorders that affect cognitive function." 
The Petitioner claims that his work in understanding how visual information is processed by the 
brain is ground breaking, and the influence of his work is evidenced through recommendation letters 
from colleagues and peers in the field who have both collaborated with him on various research 
projects or relied upon his findings as the basis for their own experiments . The Petitioner submitted 
numerous letters of recommendation from colleagues and researchers in support of the assertion. 
For example, Head ofthe Department of Optometry and Vision Sciences at the 
states that her laboratory has relied on the Petitioner's publications to 
"inform the design of ... visual stimuli, to benchmark behavioral performance, and for valuable 
insights into the theoretical modeling of the results." Associate Professor of 
Neurology and Neurosurgery at states that the Petitioner's \Vork is "particularly 
helpful in clarifying the relationship between neural activity and perception." 
Ph.D., of states that the Petitioner's "current work and contributions 
have significantly advanced our fundamental understanding of how the brain converts evidence from 
the senses into a decision to act." Moreover , numerous other individuals attest to the Petitioner 's 
innovative contributions to the field. 
4 
.
Matter ofS-
Associate Professor of Electrical and Electronic Engineering at 
states that the Petitioner is "currently pioneering a novel decision making paradigm for 
single-cell neurophysiology in awake behaving non-human primates which will be game-changing 
to the field. . 
. ." Associate Professor of Physiology and Biophysics at the 
states that the Petitioner is doing pioneering research in collaboration 
with his group on the 
project, noting that if the Petitioner's approach can be successfully implemented, "it will open up 
new therapeutic avenues .... " Professor ofNeurobiology at 
states that the Petitioner has developed an "extensive and outstanding research portfolio." These 
numerous attestations of both the current and potential impact of the Petitioner's work demonstrate 
that the Petitioner's work is already influencing the field. 
The authors indicate that the importance of the Beneficiary's work has been demonstrated through 
its publication in scientific journals that have been discussed and analyzed above, and that these 
articles are influencing and inspiring the work performed in their own laboratories. The fact that 
these fellow researchers state that the Petitioner's 
published works may be helpful or instructional in 
performing their own research demonstrates that his work has been widely implemented in the field, 
and therefore establishes that he has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and that he 
is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field. 
In short, 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 who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. In addition, he has 
documented sustained acclaim. See section 203(b)(l)(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 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. He therefore qualifies for 
classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
Cite as Matter ofS-, ID# 898239 (AAO Feb. 28, 2018) 
5