sustained EB-1A Case: Research Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF K-R-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY 30, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a research scientist, 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. 
§ ll 53(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 shown that he met only two of the ten initial evidentiary 
criteria, of which he must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and contends that he qualifies as an individual 
of extraordinary ability. 
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 K-R-
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). 
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 ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a research scientist in As he has not established that 
he has received a major, internationally recognized award, he must satisfy at least three of the ten 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
In denying the petition, the Director found that the Petitioner met the criteria for participation as a 
judge of the work of others under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and authorship of scholarly articles under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) but not for awards, published material, original contributions of major 
significance, and leading or critical role under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), (iii), (v), and (viii), 
respectively. 
Here, we agree with the Director that the evidence in the record sufficiently demonstrates that the 
Petitioner meets the criteria for judging and scholarly articles based on his work as a peer reviewer 
and his authorship of scholarly articles. We farther find that the record establishes that he meets the 
criterion for published material as shown by the articles about him relating to his work in the field that 
were published in the professional journals Nature and Science. Accordingly, the Petitioner has 
satisfied three of the ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). We will evaluate the totality of his 
documentary evidence in the context of the final merits determination below. 
2 
Matter of K-R-
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the Petitioner has submitted the requisite initial evidence, we will evaluate whether he has 
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he 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. In a final merits 
determination, we analyze a 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. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2)-(3); see also Kazarian, 
596 F.3d at 1119-20. In this matter, we find that he has established his eligibility. 
The record indicates that the Petitio~L...J..::'--"'-'..L...<J..:,..;:,.J...:u,;JLU.L_._...,~e~a~rc~h~e~r~a~t~t~h~el.-__________ _J 
I at the University of . The record also reflects that 
he is a data science fellow in the r-"------------l----------, and in that role he 
has developed tools for other researchers to build upon the research of others by promoting access to 
the scientific data underlying researchers' conclusions. As will be discussed further below, the record 
reflects that the Petitioner has been instrumental in securing over $3.6 million in research funding 
within theD program at I lthe record contains evidence of published material about 
him and his work in highly regarded professional journals, and he has served on respected editorial 
boards. In addition, his contributions have been noted within! I and internationally through 
his work as a co-founder of I I and through his presentations at international conferences, his 
scholarly articles have been highly cited, and his leadership at I I has contributed to its 
mission. When viewed together, the evidence in the record demonstrates that the Petitioner has 
sustained national or international acclaim and that his achievements have been recognized in the field 
to show that he is "one of that small percentage who [has] risen to the very top of the field of endeavor" 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2)-(3). 1 
As part of the Petitioner's role as aD fellow atl l the record reflects that he has served 
as the principal investigator in which thel IFoundation awarded a grant in the amount 
of $499,999 to develop an institute for research software. The record indicates that the Petitioner also 
was designated the principal investigator au lover a grant of $301,383 from the._l _____ _. 
Foundation to develop open source research software and training. Finally, the record shows that the 
Petitioner played an important part ofl _ lrecei;....:v..::in::ig::2....::a...:gz:..ra=n:::t~f::..ro::..:m:::....:t:::h-=-e===,------------' 
I ~rust in the amount of$2,875,071. I l the former program 
officer of this trust, states that "[the Petitioner] was selected from an international pool of highly 
qualified applicants" and that "[ t ]he single most important criteria for selection of grants . . . [is] the 
reputation and record of achievement of the principal investigator." Similarly,! I an advisor 
for strategy and program director for this trust, states that "[t]his grant is a testament to the work [the 
Petitioner] has completed and a recognition of the accomplishments and continued potential of 
I Ito benefit biomedical research nationally and internationally." 
1 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005 .1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2. AFM Update ADJ 1-14 13 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/i- l 40-evidence-pm-6002-005- l .pdf. 
3 
Matter of K-R-
The record contains published material about the Petitioner and his work in the field in profes~ 
~ such as Nature and Science which contribute to his acclaim in the field. In a letter fromL_J 
L___J associate editor for Nature, she states that "Nature's primary audience consists of practicing 
scientists" but that "the journal is also internationally renowned for its coverage of science news and 
issues pertaining to science policy and culture," noting that "some pieces are expressly conceived to 
make important research milestones understandable to a wider public." I I adds that "[i]t is 
difficult to overstate the relevance of being featured in an issue of Nature: it is a career milestone that 
few scientists achieve." 
The Petitioner's participation as a judge of others' work also demonstrates that he has risen to the very 
top of his field. The record indicates that the Petitioner has received and completed independent 
requests to review a substantial number of manuscripts for many top-ranked professional publications 
and that he is te founding editor of the I . l an associate editor 
for the journal [ and a subject editor for th~I ljournal. We find 
the Petitioner's judging experience, together with the additional evidence in the record, to be consistent 
with a determination that he is among the small percentage at the top of his field of endeavor. See 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
Regarding the Petitioner's original contributions in the field, the record contains a letter from .._I _ __. 
I ,I professor of physics, director oti I and a 20111 I in physics. He states 
that the Petitioner "co-founded I I" which is "I I 
I" He indicates, "[b ]y completing the research data pipeline, [ the Petitioner's] work has not 
~-~ 
only dramatically increased accountability in science, but also made it possible for anyone in the world 
to use open-source software to answer entirely new questions to solve pressing problems such as 
climate change, food security, and habitat loss." The record reflects that the Petitioner has presented 
his work at international conferences such as the..__ ____________ _.in 2014 and that 
he served on the organizing committee for this conference in 2016. He has also presented in the United 
Kingdom, Switzerland, New Zealand, and Australia pertaining to open science and reproducible 
research. 
With respect to his scholarly articles, the Petitioner has provided evidence of his authorship of a 
considerable amount of published material in distinguished professional journals. 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 Google Scholar reflecting a high number of citations to his published work 
from 2013 to the present. The Petitioner has offered evidence that his published material is frequently 
and consistently cited, and the record reflects that his work continues to be cited at a level 
commensurate with being at the very top of the field and demonstrates 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). 
I 
As to the Petitioner's leadin} or critical role, the record contains significant evidence of his work as a 
I I fellow atl . I I dean of the college of natural resources at D 
4 
Matter of K-R-
§
and aOsenior fellow, discusses the Petitioner's role with the I I program atD 
the amount of fonding he helped raise for research endeavors, and the recognition the 
program has received. I I adds that "[the Petitioner] is one ofl I 
most valued and respected Data Scientists, whose research and leadership have played a critical role 
positioning the university as a global epicenter for data science research and education." Together 
with the evidence discussed above, this indicates that he has risen to the very top of his field with 
sustained national or international acclaim. See section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2)-(3) 
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. He therefore qualifies for 
classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's 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 K-R-, ID# 2906883 (AAO May 30, 2019) 
5