sustained EB-1A Case: Radiology And Radiological Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF S-M-K-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 25, 2019 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a research associate in radiology and radiological science, 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. § l 153(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 Texas 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 she 
must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional documentation and a brief, arguing that she meets at least 
three of the ten criteria, has demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim, and shown that 
she is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Upon de nova review, we will sustain the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(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 m the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
Matter of S-M-K-
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, 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 ifhe 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 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). 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 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner was working as a faculty member and research associate in 
radiology and radiological science at the I I university School of Medicine. As the 
Petitioner has not indicated or established that she has received a major, internationally recognized 
award, she must satisfy at least three of the ten 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 and scholarly articles criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), respectively. As the record supports those findings, we agree with the 
Director that the Petitioner fulfilled these criteria. Specifically, the record includes evidence that the 
Petitioner has performed peer review for publications and conferences and has authored scholarly 
articles appearing in such professional journals as Clinical Cancer Research and Neoplasia. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that she also meets the published material and original 
contributions criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) and (v), respectively. In addition, as discussed in 
greater detail below, we find the record shows that the Petitioner has made original contributions to 
understanding and advancing I I that are of major significance in the field. 
2 
Matter of S-M-K-
Accordingly, she has met three of the ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), and we will evaluate 
the totality of the documentary evidence in the context of the final merits determination below. 
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 her 
successes are sufficient to demonstrate that she has extraordinary ability in the field of endeavor. We 
evaluate whether she has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that she has sustained 
national or international acclaim and that her achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation, making her 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 her eligibility for this 
classification. 
The Petitioner's resume reflects that she received a Ph.D. in Bioengineering from the University of 
I lin Germany and a Master of Science in Biomedical Engineering from the New Jersey! I I I The record indicates she has worked as a faculty-level research associate in radiology 
and radiological science at thel !University School of Medicine since 2014. 
The Petitioner has provided evidence that demonstrates she has made original contributions of major 
significance in her field of I I specifically through her innovative use of second 
harmonic generation (SHG) mi
1
roscory.1 The Petitioner established that her research and newly 
developed software to evaluate distribution have increased the understanding of the tumor 
,___ _____ __. provided insights into I I distribution in cancerous tunqors, and most 
importantly, resulted in more effective delivery of cancer drugs. The record contains documentation 
such as detailed recommendation letters from colleagues and independent experts, articles, and 
requests for future research collaboration, showing the influence of the Petitioner's research. The 
submitted evidence identifies her original contributions in the development ofl I 
methods and improved analysis, and explains how those advancements have significantly impacted 
her field. 
~--------~ director of the Cancer Imaging Research Division at the!,___ ____ _, 
University School of Medicine, attests that the Petitioner has "developed a diagnostic method to detect 
I I non-invasively using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and" i tis because of [the 
Petitioner] that we now know that it is critical to examine the correlation of ~____,,---,---~and the 
tumor,___ _____ __.as well as the heterogeneous behaviorp of cancer sq that better and more 
effective treatment plans can be formulated for cancer patients." .... L ____ _,j further states that her 
work "has caught the media's attention due to the direct impact of [her] work on improving the 
outcomes for cancer patients." For example, an article titled 1 I 
from Inside Science TV (available at www.insidescience.org) specifically references the Petitioner and 
1 The record indicates that SHG microscopy is a type of optical imaging during which light is shined into a substance and 
only specifically shaped objects (if present) reflect light back at a specific rate; it is based on a nonlinear optical effect 
where it obtains contrast from variations in a specimen's ability to generate second-harmonic light from the incident light. 
3 
Matter of S-M-K-
discusses her work developing a laser technique that will help doctors identify if a patient's cancer is 
likely to spread. 
The record contains additional documentation reflecting covera e of the Petitioner's work in 
rofessional ublications in her field such as an article titled 
'------------------------------~ from Cancer Therapy 
Advisor, an online resource for oncology health care professionals, that discusses the importance of 
her team's findings. The article quotes the Petitioner and refers to her as the lead author of a stud 
Ii h h B . hi h r 1 h h 
and can be 
1ma SHG microsco ." Similar! , an article titled .__ _____________ __. 
'-------------------------' in Breast Cancer Management, a journal 
aimed at oncologists and other health care professionals, reports on the aforementioned study. It notes 
that "[ c ]ancer imaging experts have developed a novel way to analyze the distinctive I I I I in breast tumor tissue to identify whether the cancer has spread." Significantly, it 
discusses the clinical significance of the new diagnostic technique, which uses "advanced microscopes 
equipped with tissue-penetrating laser light to measurel I of the 
tumor." 
~-----~[ a professor with the Clinic of Hematology and Medical Oncology at the University 
Medicine Center of I I and a researcher with the I I Institute of Experimental 
Medicine in Germany, attests that the Petitioner "has opened up an entirely new avenue of research in 
the area of imaging the tumor~------~··" I I notes that in her presentation to the 
World Molecular Imaging Congress, the Petitioner introduced a "non-invasive [MR] based imaging 
technique" along with SHG microscopy in breast cancer I I[.]" Her 
"cutting-edge work" was highlighted at the end of the conference because "this was a significant 
advancement over the then-current methods." 
.__ _______ __.I, the chair of the Cancer Imaging and Metabolism Department at the .... l --~ 
Cancer Center, states the Petitioner "has made several significant scientific contributions that have 
solidified her position as one of the top scientists in the field of cancer imaging research" and 
specifically discusses how her work "is already helping cancer researchers gain a clearer 
understanding of tumor biology and create better treatment regimes." Similarly,! I I I the director of research at the I I Research Institute in Australia, notes 
that the Petitioner's "ground-breaking results" in applying and developing new magnetic resonance 
based methods in clinical and preclinical cancer research "have opened an important doo
1
av to I 
creating new targeted drugs for the sophisticated evaluation and delivery of cancer treatment." 
I I scientist emeritus at thd !cancer Institute, attests that the Petitioner's method 
of non-invasive tumor imaging "means fewer invasive biopsies - greatly reducing the opportunity for 
adverse events and lowering the overall cost of treatment." 
Concerning the direct impact of the Petitioner's research on clinical practitioners, .... ! _______ ~ 
an associate professor with the Life Science! !Advanced Research Center atl University in 
Japan, states that the Petitioner's "illumination ofl I in the primary tumor" has a major 
clinical significance because it enables "oncologists (while awaiting new drug compounds) to alter 
4 
Matter of S-M-K-
their treatment regimen for patients today[.]" I I notes that prestigious joum .... a_ls ___ _, 
Neo lasia and PloS One ublished the Petitioner's findings that showed "that areas ofl~,---,---~ 
which in tum affected the transport and distribution 
...... ---------.,..-------' in the tumor. He also confirms that she "developed an innovative 
.__ ____ __.software to evaluate the I I in these varying tumor.__ ______ __, 
which is used to visualize and understand drug delivery." I I attests that these critical 
observations have allowed him, as a pharmaceutical scientist, to change the "molecular structure of 
compound[ s ]" to account for thel I 
Importantly, he also identifies several national and international research teams that are using the 
Petitioner's work and her "quantitative technique" to "inform their drug development." As additional 
evidence of the value and current use of her work, the record contains journal articles that show how 
her research has contributed to ongoing developments in her field. For example, they indicate that the 
Petitioner's findings, such as her research on breast and prostate cancer tumors, the effects o 
on thd lof tumors, and the have 
provided critical contributions to research at .__ _______ _. University in China, 
University in Sweden, andl I University. The Petitioner also submitted evidence~o-f-_h_e_r~ 
frequent selection for oral presentations at the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in 
Medicine meetings, farther demonstrating the attention her work has garnered. 
With respect to her scholarly articles, the Petitioner has provided evidence of her authorship of a 
considerable amount of published material, including numerous articles that appeared in distinguished 
professional journals. As authoring scholarly articles is inherent to scientists and researchers, the 
citation history and other evidence of the influence of the Petitioner's articles is an important indicator 
of the impact and recognition that her work has had on the field and whether such influence has been 
sustained. In this case, the Petitioner has offered reports from Google Scholar as well as evidence 
documenting that the rate at which her articles have been cited is very high for her field. The number 
of research articles she has coauthored and their unusually high rate of citation are commensurate with 
being among the small percentage at the very top of the field and demonstrate that her publication 
record sets her apart through a "career of acclaimed work in the field." See H. Rep. No. 101-723, at 
59 (Sept. 19, 1990). 
With regard to her participation as a judge of others' work, the record indicates that the Petitioner has 
reviewed numerous manuscripts for renowned professional publications including, among others, the 
Journal of Medical Physics, the Journal of the American Chemical Society, and the Journal of 
Biomedical Optics. She has also reviewed abstracts for the World Molecular Imaging Congress and 
the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, repeatedly serving as a chairperson at 
such conferences. We find the Petitioner's extensive judging experience, together with the 
achievements described above, to be consistent with a determination that she is among the small 
percentage at the top of her field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
Beyond the Petitioner's past contributions, we note that the record reflects significant prospective 
interest in utilizing her expertise in tumor SHG microscopy as part of ongoing research. Specilcally, I 
the record indicates the National Institute of Health awarded a five-year grant I I to the 
I pniversity .__ _________________ ___, research group, of which the 
5 
Matter of S-M-K-
Petitioner is listed as a co-investigator, to understand and find effective ways to treatl lcancer. 
The submitted evidence also demonstrates how the Petitioner's work developin~ I 
for cancer diagnosis and monitoring treatment is influencing the technological development of ca~ 
research and treatment. I I an engineering manager and chief technology leader atLJ 
Healthcare, affirms that the Petitioner's work "in developing cancer targets that can be non-invasiv~ 
detected in patients and allow continuous monitoring of therapy, complements our work at LJ 
Healthcare that detects early treatment response to breast cancer." Moreover, the Petitioner has 
submitted communications from multiple researchers requesting further information about her 
research and proposing future research collaboration. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has demonstrated her extraordinary ability. The totality 
of the evidence establishes that she possesses a level of expertise that is consistent with a finding that 
she is one of a small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor and that she has documented 
sustained acclaim. See section 203(b )(1 )(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 established that she meets at least three of the evidentiary criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). She has also demonstrated sustained national and international acclaim and that 
her achievements have been recognized through extensive documentation. Lastly, the Petitioner has 
shown that she intends to continue working in her area of expertise. She therefore qualifies for 
classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. In visa petition proceedings, the petitioner 
bears the burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 
U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofSkirball Cultural Ctr., 25 I&N Dec. 799,806 (AAO 2012). Here, that burden 
has been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
Cite as Matter of S-M-K-, ID# 3180381 (AAO June 25, 2019) 
6