sustained EB-1A Case: Physics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF E-G-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR.4,2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140,.1MMIGRANT PETITION FORALIE"J WORKER 
The Petitioner, a physics researcher, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in 
the sciences. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(I)(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 Acting Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the Form 1-140, 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 among the small 
percentage at the very top of the fleld 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 tield. 
Upon de novo 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 111 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 
.
Matter of E-G-
at 8 C.F .R. § 204 .5(h)(3) sets forth two options for satis fying this classification 's ini tial evidence 
requirements. Firs t, a petitioner can demonstrate a one-time achievement (that is a major , 
intern ationally recognized award ). Alternatively, he or she must provi de 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 initi al evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merit s determination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or interna tional acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USC IS, 596 F.3d 1 I I 5 (9th Cir. 201 0) 
(discussin g a two-part review where the documentat ion is first counted and then , if fultilling the 
requir ed number of criteria , considered in the context of a final merits determin atio n); see also 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp . 3d 126, 131-32 (D .D.C. 2013); R{ial v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.O . Wash . 201 1). Thi s two-step analysis is consistent \'Vith 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 ofChmwrthe , 25 1&~ Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 201 0). 
II. ANALYSIS 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner was wor king as a research physici st in the 
at the in Tennes see. As the Petitioner has 
not indicated or establi shed that he ha s received a major , internationally recog nized award, he must 
satis fy at least three of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) to meet the initi al evidentiary 
requirements . 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
The Director found that the Petition er met the judging, original contributions , and scholarly articles 
criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), (v), and (vi), respectively. His docum entary evidence 
indic ates 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 
professiona l publication s. For example ,· the record shows that the Petitioner edited articles for 
and In addition, he has mad e original theoretical 
contributions to understanding the spin Seebeck effect (SSE) that are of major signific ance in the 
field . Lastly, he has authored articles in professional publications such as 
and Accordingl y, the record supports the Director 's finding that the 
Petitioner has sat isfied at least three ofthe ten regulatory criteria. 
-'9 
2 
' ) 
.
Matter of E-G-
B. Final Merits Determination 
.A.s the record satisfi es 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 evidenc e to determine if his 
successes are sufficient to demonstrate that he has extraordinary ability in the field of endeavor. We 
evaluate whether he has demonstrat ed, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he has sustained 
national or international acclaim and that his achjevements 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.Jd at 1119-20. In the present matter, the Petitioner has shown his eligibility for this 
classification. 
The Petitioner received the foreign equivalent of a Ph.D. in optics and physics from the 
(20 12) and later worked as a postdoc toral researcher 
at the in German y. He 
subsequently served as a research associate at the 
German y, and has most recently worked as a research physicist at smce 
2015. 
With respect to his scholarly articles, the Petitioner has provided evidenc e of his a uthorship of a 
considerable amount of published material that appeared in distinguished profess ional journ als. As 
authoring scholarly article s is inherent to scientists and researcher s, 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 fie.ld and whether such influenc e has been sustained. In this 
case, the Petitioner has offered a report from retlec ting hundred s of citations to his 
published work from 2009 to present, as well as evidenc e documentin g that the rate at which his 
articles have been cited is very high for his field. The number of research article s he has coauthored 
and their unusuall y 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 
. fteld." See H. Rep. No. 101-723, at 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). 
The influence of the Petitioner' s research is further evidenced through recom mend ation letters that 
identify his original contributions in nanoscale oxide thin film fabrication and development, and 
explain how those advancements have significantly impacted his field. For example , 
a professor at the states that the Petitioner "fo und characteristic 
behavi or" in the SSE and "for the first time revealed a direct relation between the 
and the effect." further indicate s that the Petitioner's findings 
represent "significant cont ributi ons in physics that have cons iderably impro ved our approach to the 
exploration of spin Seebeck effects in oxide thin films and development of spin-caloric nano-devices 
for energy harvest." In addition, , a professor of materia ls science at the 
discu sses the Petitioner ' s research relating to che 
' and notes that his work identified "an additional handle to control 
the switching dynamics of ferroelectric capacitors ." She concludes that his "finding s are very 
3 
.
Matrer of E-G-
important for real device applications because they provide a guideline for developing ultrafast 
ferroelectric memory devices." 
In his letter, a professor of multifunctional ferroic materials at the 
contends that the Petitioner "has made original and significant 
contributions in physics, especially in the effort to advance the physical properties of oxide thin 
lilms, including the lerromagnetization and ferroe1ectricity." Furthermore, 
a physicist at states that the Petitioner's ''original 
discoveries regarding nanostructured magnetic materials alone place him among the leading 
scientists in his field" and that "few others in this field have amassed such trendsetting research 
success." 
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 a 
large number of renowned professional publications. We find the Petitioner's judging experience, 
together with the achievements described above, to be consistent with a determination that he ts 
among the small perccntage.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 
independent references' statements regarding the Petitioner's standing in the field and the 
sign[ficance 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 other 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.Jd at 1119-20. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has established 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 
shown that he intends to c_ontinue \vorking in his area. of expertise. l-Ie therefore qualities for 
classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
ORDE.R: The appeal is sustained. 
Cite as Matter o{E-G-, ID# 1090612 (AAO Apr. 4, 2018) 
4