sustained EB-1A Case: Physiology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 23214150 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : NOV . 14, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a researcher in the field ofl I seeks classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability . 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 the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner had satisfied at least three of ten initial evidentiary criteria, as required . 
The matter is now before us on appeal. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence . 
Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec . 369, 375 (AAO 2010) . We review the 
questions in this matter de nova. See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
Upon de nova review , we will sustain the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to individuals with 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, provided that the individual seeks to enter the United States to continue 
work in the area of extraordinary ability, and the individual'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 that 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). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner to submit 
comparable evidence if they are able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(3 )(i)­
(x) do not readily apply to the individual's 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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner earned a doctoral degree in physiology in Chile at ____________ 
I lin 2012. Some of his doctoral studies took place at academic research institutions in Brazil, 
Chile, the United States, and Italy. The Petitioner most recently entered the United States as an H-lB 
nonimmigrant to work as a researcher/project scientist at the University of I 
In June 2022, he was granted H-lB status to work as a research engineer at _______ 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or shown that he 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 Petitioner claims to have satisfied several of these criteria, relating to original contributions 
of major significance; participation as a judge of the work of others; receipt of lesser nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes for excellence in the field; commanding a high salary or significantly 
high remuneration for services in relation to others in the field; membership in associations in the field 
for which classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members as judged 
by experts in their disciplines or fields; published materials about him in professional or major trade 
publications or major media; and authorship of scholarly articles. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner met the criteria relating to authorship of articles. On appeal, 
the Petitioner asserts that he meets six additional criteria noted above, and that the Director therefore 
should have proceeded to a final merits determination. After reviewing all of the evidence in the 
record, we conclude that the Petitioner meets the requisite minimum of three criteria, and that after a 
final merits determination, he merits a first preference immigrant visa as an individual with 
extraordinary ability in the sciences. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Evidence of the individual's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi) 
The Director found that the Petitioner met this criterion, and we agree. The Google Scholar database 
showed over 200 citations of his published articles. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
2 
(USCIS) Policy Manual states "a goodly number" of such citations "may be probative of the 
significance of the person's contributions to the field of endeavor." We believe that is indeed the case 
here and, as such, conclude he has met this criterion. 
Evidence of the individual's "original scient[fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or 
business-related contributions of major significance in the field. " 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
This criterion requires evidence of the person's "original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or 
business-related contributions of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). The first 
step in the analysis is to determine whether the person made an original contribution to the field. 
Group efforts do not lessen the originality of a contribution; all parties identified as part of the group 
are considered to have made the contribution. The phrase "major significance" is not defined by the 
regulations or policy. Therefore, we utilize a plain language reading of the criterion and require a 
person show their contribution made more than a de minimis impact on the field. 
The record contains detailed, probative letters from several research colleagues in the Petitioner's 
field. For example, one colleague describes how the "[Petitioner] has been developing technology, 
new tools, and experimental setups to study I He further explains how he 
and his "collaborators in Brazil and Sweden have been using some of these tools to conduct 
ex eriments where the I I activity of rodents is recorded as they actively perform different 
Another colleague describes how her work with the Petitioner focuses on developing 
recording patches that can be placed ontol lskin in order to record data. 
She explains how the Petitioner is an expert in L I I I and has provided tremendous value in designing, testing, and deploying these 
groundbreaking systems." She also explains that the Petitioner's research contributions are helping 
her deploy a National Institutes of Health (NIH) study in Ukraine for children with 
due to prenatall I exposure. She states: 
Patches are revolutionary and allow researchers to monitor I systems in a 
continuous and noninvasive manner in ways that were previously not possible with 
such ease .... we are only at the tip of the iceberg in this area .... He has conducted 
research on how the I and the interaction between the 
He has worked to understand the 
specifically the impact ofl I on the 
I 
Additional evidence, including several more letter writers attesting in meaningful detail to his original 
contributions to the field of I the award of grants to conduct! I research, and 
his scholarly contributions in the form of scholarly articles that have been repeatedly cited to, all 
support finding that he has made original contributions of major significance in his field. The 
Petitioner has satisfied this criterion by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Evidence of the individual's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge 
of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which 
class[fication is sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) 
3 
To meet this criterion, a pet1t10ner must show evidence of the person's "participation, either 
individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specification 
for which classification is sought." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). The petitioner must show that the 
person has not only been invited to judge the work of others, but also that the person actually 
participated in the judging of the work of others in the same or allied field of specialization. 
The record includes evidence of the Petitioner's role advising undergraduate students at the University 
of in his field of I sciences. The evidence further shows 
that he served as a thesis advisor to graduate students in in Chile. The record contains detailed and 
meaningful letters from colleagues concerning his work judging the work of others in his field. As 
such, he has demonstrated he meets the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
Published material about the individual in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which class[fication is 
sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any 
necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
To meet this criterion, the published material should be about the person, relating to the person's work 
in the field, not just about the person's employer or another organization that the person is associated 
with. In addition, published material that includes only a brief citation or passing reference to the 
person's work is not "about" that person. See Noroozi v. Napolitano, 905 F.Supp.2d 535 (S.D.N.Y. 
2012) (articles about the Iranian table tennis team mentioning a person only briefly were not about 
him); see also Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2008 WL 106997512 (D. Nev. 2008) (articles focusing on a 
character or show were not about the actor). 
The Petitioner submitted three published articles that cover the Petitioner's work. One article titled 
was published in a 
Chilean newspaper of national circulation on 2021. It discusses the Petitioner's work, but 
does not include an author and therefore does not meet the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
Another article dated 2021 in the Coun News titled! I 
discusses the fact that the Petitioner 
was one of36 scientists nationally who received this grant for research from the National Science 
Foundation (NSF). However, since the article shows no author and appears to have been only 
circulated locall it does not meet the re uirements of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) either. The final 
article titled datedl J 2019 and written by 
______ was published in Ethology, Zoology Scient[fic News. The English translation of 
this article however, provides no indication about whether this is a professional or major trade 
publication. Nor was any independent evidence provided to show this publication constitutes "major 
media." As such, none of the articles provided meet the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
B. Final Merits 
The Petitioner has submitted the requisite initial evidence, having provided evidence that he meets at 
least three of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) as a researcher specializing in the area of 
In a final merits determination, we examine and weigh the totality of 
4 
the evidence to determine whether the Petitioner 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. 
The evidence establishes that, as a researcher at two preeminent educational and research institutions 
in the United States, the Petitioner has achieved sustained acclaim in the field for his work in 
_______ patches that may have the ability to revolutionize research and medical 
practices worldwide. For instance, the patches he developed measure ______ 
continuous monitoring to medical personnel in a noninvasive wa which is 
the care of vulnerable populations such a 
patients. He has demonstrated the effectiveness of his research and its application by gaining 
prestigious funding awards from national research institutions and foundations including NIH, NSF, 
and the I I Institute. Furthermore, his colleagues describe him as a leader in his field and 
someone who is sought out to present at scientific meetings and in seminars organized by important 
research institutes. The three articles provided show that his work has garnered international 
recognition, with one article published in a Chilean national newspaper, and another in a Russian 
language scientific publication. His coll ea ue at the Institute describes how the Petitioner's 
research will help in treating In particular, the technique developed by the 
Petitioner allows light controlled remotely and is used by 
researchers looking at _________ model. The importance of the Petitioner's ongoing 
research and the application of the tools he has developed to assist other researchers in areas of major 
importance to the U.S. medical research community places him as one of the small percentage at the 
top of his field. 
C. Continue to Work in the Field 
Per section 203(b)(l)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Petitioner must establish that he seeks to enter the United 
States to continue work in his area of extraordinary ability. The Petitioner has indicated that he is 
employed at I I University as a research scientist and there is no indication in the record that he 
has any plans other than to continue to perform work in his field. As such, this requirement appears 
to be met. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has submitted the required initial evidence and demonstrated in the final merits 
determination that he is researcher of extraordinary ability. In addition, he has shown that he will 
continue to work in his area of extraordinary ability and that his entry will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
5