sustained EB-1A Case: Plant Genetics

U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
Us CilizenshipandImmigrationservice
identifyingdatadeletedto y" ^s^
preventclearlyunwarranted Washington,DC20529-2090
invasionofpersonalprivacy U.S.Citizenshipand Immigration
PUBLIC COPY services
DATE: AUG2 8 2012 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICECENTER FILE:
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of ExtraordinaryAbility Pursuantto
Section203(b)(1)(A)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A)
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
SELF-REPRESENTED
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office m your case. All of the documents
related to this matter have beenreturned to the office that originally decided your case. Pleasebe advised
thatanyfurtherinquiry thatyou mighthaveconcerningyourcasemustbemadeto thatoffice.
Thankyou,
Perry Rhew
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscis.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION:TheDirector,NebraskaServiceCenter,deniedtheemployment-basedimmigrantvisa
petition,whichisnowbeforetheAdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO)onappeal.Theappealwill be
sustained.
The petitionerseeksclassificationasan "alien of extraordinaryability" in the sciences,pursuantto
section203(b)(1)(A)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct (theAct), 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A).The
directordeterminedthepetitionerhadnot establishedthe sustainednationalor internationalacclaim
necessarytoqualifyfor classificationasanalienof extraordinaryability.
Congressseta veryhighbenchmarkfor aliensof extraordinaryabilityby requiringthroughthestatute
that the petitionerdemonstratethe alien's"sustainednationalor internationalacclaim"'andpresent
"extensivedocumentation"of the alien'sachievements.Seesection203(b)(1)(A)(i)of theAct and
8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3).Theimplementingregulationat8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)statesthatanaliencan
establishsustainednationalor internationalacclaimthroughevidenceof a one-timeachievementof a
major, internationallyrecognizedaward. Absentthe receiptof suchan award,theregulationoutlines
ten categoriesof specificobjectiveevidence.8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(i)through(x). The petitioner
must submit qualifying evidenceunderat leastthreeof the ten regulatorycategoriesof evidenceto
establishthebasiceligibility requirements.
Onappeal,thepetitionersubmitsabrief. Forthereasonsdiscussedbelow,theAAO issatisfiedthatthe
evidenceof recordadequatelyestablishesthepetitioner'seligibility for theclassification.
I. LAW
Section203(b)of theAct states,in pertinentpart,that:
(1) Priorityworkers.-- Visasshallfirst bemadeavailable. . . to qualifiedimmigrantswhoare
aliensdescribedin anyof thefollowingsubparagraphs(A) through(C):
(A) Alienswith extraordinaryability.- An alienisdescribedin thissubparagraphif --
(i) the alien has extraordinaryability in the sciences,arts, education,
business,or athleticswhichhasbeendemonstratedby sustainednationalor
internationalacclaimandwhoseachievementshavebeenrecognizedin the
fieldthroughextensivedocumentation,
(ii) thealienseeksto entertheUnitedStatesto continuework in theareaof
extraordinaryability,and
(iii) the alien's entry into the United Stateswill substantiallybenefit
prospectivelytheUnitedStates.
Page3
U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices(USCIS)andlegacyImmigrationandNaturalizationService
(INS) haveconsistentlyrecognizedthatCongressintendedto seta very highstandardfor individuals
seekingimmigrantvisasasaliensof extraordinaryability. SeeH.R. 723 101" Cong.,2d Sess.59
(1990);56 Fed.Reg.60897,60898-99(Nov.29, 1991).Theterm"extraordinaryability" refersonlyto
thoseindividualsin thatsmallpercentagewhohaverisento theverytopof thefield of endeavor.Id.;
8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(2).
The regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)requiresthat the petitionerdemonstratethe alien's sustained
acclaimandtherecognitionof hisachievementsin thefield. Suchacclaimmustbeestablishedeither
throughevidenceof a one-timeachievement(that is, a major,internationalrecognizedaward)or
throughthe submissionof qualifyingevidenceunderat leastthreeof the ten categoriesof evidence
listedat8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x).
In 2010,the U.S. Court of Appealsfor the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewedthe denialof a
petitionfiledunderthisclassification.Kazarianv. USCIS,596F.3d1115(9thCir. 2010).Althoughthe
courtupheldtheAAO's decisionto denythepetition,thecourttook issuewith theAAO's evaluation
of evidencesubmittedto meeta givenevidentiarycriterion.' With respectto thecriteriaat 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv)and(vi), thecourtconcludedthatwhile USCISmayhaveraisedlegitimateconcerns
aboutthesignificanceof theevidencesubmittedto meetthosetwo criteria,thoseconcernsshouldhave
beenraisedin asubsequent"final meritsdetermination."Id. at 1121-22.
Thecourtstatedthatthe AAO's evaluationrestedon an improperunderstandingof the regulations.
Insteadof parsingthe significanceof evidenceaspartof the initial inquiry,thecourtstatedthat"the
properprocedureis to countthetypesof evidenceprovided(whichtheAAO did)," andif thepetitioner
failed to submitsufficientevidence,"the properconclusionis thattheapplicanthasfailed to satisfythe
regulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence(asthe AAO concluded)."1d.at 1122(citing to
8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)).
Thus,Kazariansetsforth a two-partapproachwheretheevidenceis first counted. If thepetitioner
satisfiesat leastthreecriteria,thenUSCISwill considertheevidencein thecontextof a final merits
determination.
II. ANALYSIS
A. EvidentiaryCriteria
The petitionerseeksclassificationasan"alien of extraordinaryability" in thesciences.Upon review
of theentirerecord,theAAO affirmsthedirector'sfmdingsthatthepetitioner'ssubmittedevidence
meets three of the regulatory categoriesof evidence at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv), (v) and (vi).
Specifically,the court statedthat the AAO had unilaterallyimposednovel substantiveor evidentiary
requircrnentsbeyondthose set forth in the regulationsat 8 C.F.R. §204.S(h)(3)(iv)and 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi).
Page4
Accordingly, thepetitionerhasestablishedtheminimum eligibility requirementsnecessaryto qualify
asanalienof extraordinaryability. 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3).
B. FinalMeritsDetermination
TheAAO will nextconductafinalmeritsdeterminationthatconsidersall of theevidencein thecontext
of whetheror not the petitionerhas demonstrated:(1) a "level of expertiseindicatingthat the
individualis oneof thatsmallpercentagewhohaverisento theverytopof the[ir] field of endeavor,
8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(2);and(2) "thatthealienhassustainednationalor internationalacclaimandthat
hisor herachievementshavebeenrecognizedin thefield of expertise."Section203(b)(1)(A)of the
Act;8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3).SeealsoKazarian,596F.3dat 1119-20.
In thepresentmatter,consistentwith Matterof Price,20 I&N Dec.953(Act. Assoc.Comm'r 1994),
the petitionerhassubmittedextensivedocumentationof his achievementsin the sciencesandhas
demonstrateda careerof acclaimedwork in thefield" ascontemplatedby Congress.H.R.Rep.No.
101-723,59 (Sept.19, 1990). The submittedevidenceis sufficientto demonstratethe petitioner's
sustainedacclaimand that his achievementshavebeenrecognizedin the field of expertise. The
petitioner,whospecializesin plantgeneticsandbreeding,genomicsandbioinformatics,hasauthored
numerousscholarlyarticlesin a varietyof scientificjournalsandsubmittedevidenceshowingthat
hundredsof independentresearchershaveconsistentlycitedto hiswork. SeeKazarian,596F.3dat
1121(citationsmayberelevantto thefinal meritsdeterminationof whetheranalienis attheverytop
of his field). In addition,hehasfrequentlyjudgedthework of othersin his field. While thereis no
evidencethat the petitioneractuallyservedin this role, the recorddoesrevealthat theJournal of
PlantGenomicsinvitedthepetitionerto serveasGuestLeadEditorfor a specialissueof hischoice.
Finally,thepetitionersubmittedcorroboratedreferencelettersfrom independentexpertsin thefield,
detailinghis specificcontributionsandexplaininghow thosecontributionshaveinfluencedthefield
at largeandarebeingutilized by others. While the directorconcludedthatthe petitioner'sawards
from thecentralChinesegovernmentdid notmeettherequirementsof 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(i),the
petitionerdoesmeetan additionalthreecriteria and the awardsare certainlycompatiblewith a
conclusionthat the petitioneris at the top of his field. Thus,the petitioner'sachievementsare
commensuratewith sustainednationalor internationalacclaimattheverytopof hisfield.
IIL CONCLUSION
While theAAO doesnot find thatall of theevidencecarriestheweightimputedto it by thepetitioner,
the AAO doesfind theevidenceof recordsufficient to establishthat thepetitionerhasdemonstratedhis
eligibility for theclassificationsought. Specifically,uponcarefulreviewof therecord,it is concluded
that the petitionerhasdemonstratedby a preponderanceof the evidencethat he is within the small
percentageof individualswhohaverisento theverytopof hisfield. Theevidencesubmittedestablishes
thatthepetitionerhassustainednationalor internationalacclaim,hisachievementshavebeenrecognized
in his field, he seeksto continueworking in the samefield and his entry will substantiallybenefit
prospectivelytheUnitedStates.
Page5
Theburdenof proof in visapetitionproceedingsremainsentirelywith thepetitioner. Section291of
theAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1361.Here,thepetitionerhassustainedthatburden.
ORDER: Thedecisionof thedirectoris withdrawn. Theappealis sustainedandthepetitionis
approved.