sustained EB-1A Case: Veterinary Medicine

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF Q-C-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 30,2017 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a veterinary medicine researcher, seeks classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability in the sciences. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
203(b)(1)(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 Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had satisfied only two of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, of 
which he must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief stating that he meets five criteria and has shown 
extraordinary ability in the field. 
Upon de novo review, we will sustain the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states in pertinent part: 
(1) Priority workers.-- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants 
who are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -An alien is described in this subparagraph 
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 in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
.
Matter of Q-C-
(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 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth two pptions 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, published material in certain media, and scholarly articles). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we th~n 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. USC IS, 596 F .3d 1115 (9th Cir. 201 0) 
(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 works as a researcher in the 
at Because he has not established that he 
has received a major, internationally recognized award, the Petitioner must satisfy at least three of 
the alternate regulatory 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 criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The record contains evidence of his review of articles for professional journals, such as 
and . In addition, the Director determined that 
the Petitioner satisfied the scholarly articles criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) based on his 
authorship of numerous research articles that appeared in professional publications, such as 
and Moreover, the record indicates 
that he has made original contributions of major significance in the field that satisfy the criterion 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). Specifically, the Petitioner's article in 
concerning his isolation and characterization of 
2 
.
Matter of Q-C-
has been extensively cited by other researchers in their own work. The significance of his 
research is further supported by recommendation letters detailing the impact of his findings on the 
field and by commercialization of his work in the form of a diagnostic test used by veterinarians to 
detect infection. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the record satisfies 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 his 
successes are sufficient to demonstrate that he has extraordinary ability in the field of endeavor. We 
will evaluate whether he has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he has sustained 
national or international acclaim and that his achievements 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 )(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 
his eligibility for this 
classification. 
We evaluate the significance of the Petitioner's judging experience to determine if such evidence is 
indicative of his extraordinary ability as required for this highly restrictive classification. 
See Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1121-22. Here, the record indicates that he has received and completed 
independent requests to review a substantia] number of manuscripts for multiple professional 
publications and has served as an associate editor for a veterinary journal. We find this experience, 
together with the achievements described below, to be consistent with a determination that the 
Petitioner is among the small percentage at the top of his field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). 
With respect to his scholarly articles, the Petitioner has provided evidence of his authorship of a 
considerable amount of published material that appeared in professional journals, including multiple 
articles in a highly ranked journal of the 
In addition, the record includes abstracts and proceedings from his presentations at 
national and international professional conferences. 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 evidence that his 
articles in and have garnered an unusually high number 
of citations, and that his other work has also been cited a great deal. In fact, even after the filing of 
this appeal, his work continues to be cited at a level commensurate with sustained national or 
international acclaim at the top of his field. As such, the Petitioner has established 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). 
The influence of the Petitioner's research is further evidenced through recommendation letters that 
identify his "unique and groundbreaking contributions to 
3 
.
Matter of Q-C-
development" and that explain how his work "has had a major impact on U.S. and global pork 
production." For example, professor and chair of at explained 
that there was an outbreak of in the U.S. in 2013 and that the disease has subsequently 
"caused annual economic losses of$1.2-$1.8 billion to the U.S. pork industry." indicated 
that the Petitioner "was the first researcher to successfully isolate the virus in cell culture, allowing 
for the development of a vaccine to protect pigs from .the disease." He further noted that the 
Petitioner's work "saved the U.S. porcine industry hundreds of millions of dollars in losses and 
benefited the biopharma industry." In addition, director of global diagnostic 
medicine for a leading international producer of medicine and vaccinations for pets and 
livestock, stated that another" live vaccine candidate derived from [the Petitioner's] isolates" 
is under evaluation in trial studies. Lastly, dean of veterinary medicine at 
asserted that the Petitioner developed and optimized an immuno-fluorescence antibody 
diagnostic test to detect the infection. She also indicated that his test was 
commercialized by "as the first serologic assay to detect infection in the U.S." and that 
"[v]eterinarians across the U.S. and abroad are using this assay." 
' 
Finally, the record includes ample documentary evidence supporting the aforementioned references ' 
statements regarding the significance and <;>riginality of the Petitioner 's work. In addition to the 
extensive number of citations to his articles, he provided intellectual-property documents identifying 
him as an inventor, evidence of royalties he received from and various media reports discussing 
his work. 
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 finding1 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.3d at 
1119-20. 
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. Finally, the Petitioner has 
indicated that he intends to continue working in his area of expertise. He therefore qualifies for 
classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
Cite as Matter ofQ-C-, ID# 447527 (AAO June 30, 2017) 
4