sustained EB-1A Case: Physics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF J-A-1-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. 28. 2017 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a physicist, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in the 
sciences. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )( 1 )(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 I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had satisfied only two of the ten initial evidentiary criteria. of 
which he must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief stating that he meets three additional criteria and has shown 
extraordinary ability in the field. 
Upon de novo review, we will sustain the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states in pertinent part: 
(1) Priority workers. --Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants 
who are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. - An alien is described in this subparagraph 
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. 
.
Malter C?f J-A-J-
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 of evidence 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. USC/S, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 20 I 0) 
(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. USC/S, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.O. 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 ofChmrathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 201 0). 
If. ANALYSIS 
At the time of filing , the Petitioner was working as an engineering physicist at 
Because he has not established that he has received a major, 
internationally recognized award, the Petitioner must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) to meet the initial evidentiary requirements. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
The Director found that the Petitioner met the judging criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3 )(iv). In 
support of this finding , the record contains evidence of his review of material for 
and the 
committee. In addition. the Director determined that 
the Petitioner satisfied the scholarly articles criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) based on his co­
authorship of numerous research articles that appeared in professional publications, such as 
and Moreover, we find the record indicates that 
the Petitioner has made original contributions of major significance in the field that satisfy the 
criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3 )(v). Specitically. the Petitioner has developed novel platforms 
for control systems that are widely utilized in the research community and commercial sector. 
Lastly, he has provided contracts and national wage information for physicists indicating that he 
commands a high salary relative to others in the field under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
2 
.
Matter qf J-A-J-
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)(1)(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 a Ph.D. in particle physics from 
accepted a to perform physics research at 
an engineering physicist at since 2012. 
(2006) and later 
He has worked as 
With respect to his scholarly articles, the Petitioner has provided evidence of his co-authorship of a 
considerable amount of published material that appeared in professional journals. In addition. the 
record includes numerous abstracts and proceedings from his presentations at national and 
international professional conferences. 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 
reflecting thousands of citations to his published work from 2007 to present. The number of 
research articles he has coauthored and their unusually high rate of citation is commensurate with 
sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the tield. As such, the Petitioner has 
established 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 recommendation letters that 
identify his original contributions in particle and accelerator physics and explain how those 
innovations have significantly impacted his field. For example , a professor at 
states: " [The Petitioner] introduced a new approach in the 
architecture of trigger systems for physics experiments known as the 
which is in use by multiple groups now and we are using tor our latest project at ' In 
addition, electronics engineering director at the 
system. 
by 
asserts that the Petitioner's 
electronics platform is "producing the best results ever seen·· in a control 
further explains that the Petitioner's "powerful designs and solutions·· are "utilized 
across the United States, including 
and 
"[ o ]ther labs, including 
solutions." 
· and that 
are current[ly] seeking to adopt his 
.
Matter of J-A-J-
In his letter, professor of physics at contends that 
the Petitioner's "novel designs and process approaches have revolutionized the way we in the 
physics field are able to conduct experiments, and greatly improved the data we are able to take 
away from our experiments." Furthermore, a physics professor at the 
in Greece, states that " [t]he stacked pixel detector pioneered by !the 
Petitioner] has become the baseline design for the new of the 
experiment and "demonstrates [the Petitioner ' s] imp011ant and far-ranging contributions to 
the field. " 1 Lastly , a senior scientist at asserts that the Petitioner"s 
"contributions and skills place him among the world's top patiicle and accelerator physicists." 
With regard to his work as a judge of others, the record indicates that the Petitioner has peer 
reviewed others' published work and performed a systems review of the accelerator 
components. In addition, regarding his high salary, the Petitioner has provided service and 
labor contracts he entered into with He also offers wage statistics for physicists from the 
and the 
as bases for comparison. The salary information from the 
aforementioned organizations is sufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner's wages and 
compensation from are significantly high relative to other physicists. We find the Petitioner ' s 
judging experience and wages, together with the achievements described above, to be consistent 
with a determination that the Petitioner is among the small percentage at the top of his field of 
endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
Finally, the record includes ample documentary evidence supporting the aforementioned 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 is widely utilized by universities, engineering companies, and research 
organizations. 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)(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 . Lastly, the Petitioner has 
indicated that he intends to continue working in his area of expertise. He therefore qualifies for 
classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
1 
According to is a worldwide collaboration. and is one of the experiments in physics:· 
4 
Matter of J-A-J-
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
CiteasMattero{J-A-J-. ID# 1017253 (AAONov. 28. 2017) 
5