dismissed O-1A Case: Biomedical Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8478780 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JULY 23, 2020 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (Extraordinary Ability- 0) 
The Petitioner, a business specializing in biomedical technology investment and development, seeks to 
classify the Beneficiary as a foreign national of extraordinary ability in the sciences. To do so, the 
Petitione r seeks 0-1 nonimmigrant classification , available to foreign nationals who can demonstrate 
their extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements 
have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. See Immigration and Nationality 
Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(O)(i) , 8 U.S.C . § l 10l(a)(l5)(O)(i). 
The Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition , concluding that the Petitioner did not 
satisfy, as required , the alternative evidentiary criteria applicable to individuals of extraordinary ability 
in the sciences, either a major, internationally recognized award or at least three of eight possible forms 
of documentation. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A)-(B). 
On appeal , the Petitioner asserts that the previously submitted evidence establishes that the Beneficiary 
meets three of the initial evidentiary criteria and is otherwise qualified for the benefit sought. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
As relevant here, section 101(a)(15)(O)(i) of the Act establishes 0-1 classification for an individual who 
has extraordinary ability in the sciences , arts, education , business, or athletics that has been demonstrated 
by sustained national or international acclaim , whose achievements have been recognized in the field 
through extensive documentation, and who seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area 
of extraordinary ability. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regulations define "extraordinary 
ability in the field of science, education, business, or athletics" as "a level of expertise indicating that the 
person is one of the small percentage who have arisen to the very top of the field of endeavor ." 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(ii). 
Next , DHS regulations set forth alternative evidentiary criteria for establishing a beneficiary's 
sustained acclaim and the recognition of achievements. A petitioner may submit evidence either 
of "a major, internationally recognized award, such as a Nobel Prize," or of at least three of eight listed 
categories of documents. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A)-(B). 
The submission of documents satisfying the initial evidentiary criteria does not, in and of itself: 
establish eligibility for 0-1 classification. See 59 Fed. Reg. 41818, 41820 (Aug. 15, 1994) ("The 
evidence submitted by the petitioner is not the standard for the classification, but merely the 
mechanism to establish whether the standard has been met.") Accordingly, where a petitioner 
provides qualifying evidence satisfying the initial evidentiary criteria, we will determine whether the 
totality of the record and the quality of the evidence shows sustained national or international acclaim 
such that the individual is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. See 
section 101(a)(15)(o)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii), (iii). 1 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Beneficiary was employed as a Senior Research Specialist at thd !University School 
of Medicine Laboratory forl • I Research at the time the Petitioner filed 
the petition. Between 2013 and 2018, while a joint graduate student with I !University and 
I 1 !university, he worked as a Trainee Researcher at that laboratory. The Beneficiary 
received his master's degree in bioengineering froml !University in 2019. The Petitioner 
seeks to employ the Beneficiaiy as a Senior Science Officer. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that the Beneficiary has received a major, 
internationally recognized award, it must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(l)-(8). 
The Petitioner submitted evidence relating to four of the eight alternate regulatmy criteria. 2 In denying 
the petition, the Director found that the Petitioner satisfied only two of the initial evidentiary criteria: 
judging under 8 C.F.R § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(4) and scholarly articles under 8 C.F.R 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(6). 3 However, the Director determined that the Petitioner's evidence did not 
demonstrate that it satisfied the claimed criterion relating to original contributions of major 
significance in the field. We have reviewed all of the evidence in the record and conclude that the 
Petitioner has not established that it meets this third criterion. 
1 See also Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010), in which we held that, "tmth is to be determined not 
by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality." 
2 The Director determined that the Petitioner initially submitted evidence related to membership in associations at 8 C.F .R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(2) but did not satisfy this c1iterion. The Petitioner does not contest this issue on appeal and therefore 
we deem it to be waived. See, e.g., Matter of M-A-S-, 24 l&N Dec. 762, 767 n.2 (BIA 2009). 
3 The record reflects that the Beneficiary served as an expert reviewer for journals including Cancer Medicine, Future 
Oncology, and Oncogenesis. and authored scholarly articles in professional publications. Accordingly, we agree with the 
Director that the Petitioner fulfilled the judging and scholarly articles criteria. 
2 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, or business-related contributions of 
majorsign[ficance in thefield. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(5). 
In her decision, the Director acknowledged the Petitioner's submission of expert opinion letters 
discussing the Beneficiary's research, copies of his published articles along with information regarding 
the journals in which he was published, and evidence that he has been cited by other researchers in 
their own published work. However, the Director dete1mined that the evidence did not substantiate 
the Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary had made original scientific contributions of major 
significance. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not give sufficient consideration 
to the evidence submitted in support of this criterion or consider the evidence in its totality. 
In order to meet this criterion, a petitioner must establish that not only has the Beneficiaiy made 
original contributions but that they have been of major significance in the field. For example, a 
petitioner may show that the Beneficiary's contributions have been widely implemented throughout 
the field, have remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major 
significance in the field. 
The Petitioner identifies seven original contributions that it claims have made an impact in the field 
of I I cancer research. Although the Petitioner provided expert opinion letters praising the 
Beneficiaiy for his research contributions, the authors, as discussed below, do not provide specific 
examples of original contributions that are indicative of major significance. In general, the letters 
recount the Beneficiary's research and findings, indicate their publications in journals, and point to 
the citation of his work by others. Although they reflect the novelty of his work, they do not show 
how his research and findings have been considered of such importance and how their impact on the 
field rises to the level required by this criterion. 
The Petitioner indicates that all the Beneficiary's clai
1
ed ori,inal contributions are related to his study 
ofthe~--------~genetic mutations in cancer patients. The Petitioner explains 
that the Beneficiary "established I I mutations as a ve valuable prognostic genetic 
marker" of high mortality risk in certain atients wit cancer. It also indicates that 
he "confirmed that the genetic.__-----~------,,----.----' mutations is the most robust 
genetic driver for disease recurrence and patient mortality in,___~cancer," and that he "elucidated 
the molecular mechanism" underlying the powerful oncogenicity ofl I I mutations. .__ __________ __. 
,....._ _______ _____. a professor at I I University School of Medicine, states that the 
Beneficiary's research work and publications have been mostly focused on I I which he 
calls "the most important oncogene inl I cancer." He indicates that he has been also actively 
conducting research in this area and that he is "impressed by [the Beneficiary's] seminal 
contributions." He explains that the Beneficiary's work "documents the prognostic value of gene 
mutations, particularly[ I in the risk stratification of I I cancer." He also orovides 
that "in recent years [the Beneficiary] and his colleagues identified a unique genetid I I I mutations and demonstrated that this is a robust genetic 
background underpinning the most aggressiveness ofl I cancer." He asserts that "this important 
d~covery rovides a novel and powerful molecular prognostic tool to help improve the risk assessment 
o cancer for precision treatment," and that the Beneficiary's "talents and technical expertise 
3 
are on the brink of successfolly applying what could be a revolutionary and field-leading approach to 
the treatments of cancer." While he generally notes the potential application of the 
Beneficiary's research,.__ ___ ____, does not explain how it has already significantly influenced or 
impacted their shared field. Cf Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 134-135 (D.D.C. 2013) 
(upholding a finding that a ballroom dancer had not met a similar criterion in the regulations pertaining 
to immigrants of extraordinaiy ability because she did not demonstrate her impact in the field as a whole) . 
.__ _______ _. a professor at University of I I Medical Center, asserts that the 
Beneficiary's published work "in recent years" has been inspirational to his own research in 
"developing diagnostic and prognostic molecular markers for human cancers, particularly! I 
cancer." He asserts that "[b ]y applying [ the Beneficda:' sl fif dings to our own research, we were able 
to continue to advance this area of research related t cancer ..... [ f]or example ... in lhelpingl 
us to better decide which genetic markers and patterns to include for risk stratification of 
cancer." 
I a professor at University I !Medical Campus, claims that 
.__th_e_B_e_n-efi-1-ci_a_ry_"_h-as__,had a profound impact on the understanding ofl I cancer biology and 
molecular-based mana ement of this cancer." He states that the Beneficia 's 2018 article titled 
(Journal of Clinical Onf°logy)] "challenges the half-centmy-old dogma that patient age is a 
uniformly high mortality risk in cancer patients and has important clinical imulicatious" He 
also asserts that the Beneficiary's study of the correlation between the genetid I I 1 hmtations and poor cl~tcomes inl lcancer has "strong clinical utility 
in the risk assessment and management ofL__Jcancer and other human cancers as well." 
While the letters ofl land I I confirm that the research conducted by the 
Beneficiary generated interest amongst other researchers who were able to apply the Bene1ci7'sl 
work to their own research, they do not show that the impact of his work on the overall field of 
cancer research rises to the level of an original contribution of major significance. For example, 
I I does not discuss its specific impact or influence in the field beyond noting that it has been 
"inspirational" to his own research.I ~escribes the Petitioner's research work as having "a 
profound impact" and "strong clinical utility in the risk assessment and management o~ I cancer 
and other human cancers," without farther explaining how it has already impacted or influenced the 
field. 
The Petitioner also provided a letter from '---------~ a professor at the Institute of 
Biomedicine I land a co-author of four of the Beneficiary's articles published 
in 2017 and 2018. He states that the Beneficiary "accomplished numerous outstanding projects that 
broke new grounds in ... I lcancer research." He indicates that the Beneficiaiy's research 
findings on mutation-guided management ofl pancer such asl I 
mutations "has a particularly profound impact on the I I cancer field and on the clinical 
translation, which has revolutionized the modeml I precision management ofi . I 
cancer." I l's letter does not provide sufficient specificity regarding the major 
significance of the Beneficiary's research to support his claim that the Beneficiary's research findings 
"revolutionized the modern I I precision management ofl I cancer." 
4 
~--~----- a professor atl ~ School of Medicine and the Beneficiary's mentor, 
states that the Beneficiary's work in the area of the I I mutation as a prognostic genetic 
marker in I I cancer "is being actively tested clinically by many investigators today." 
He asserts that the Beneficiar 's research identifying the molecular mechanism br whichl the genetic 
L.--~--.....,.....- ........... ----....--lr-~r~o 7mote oncogenesis and aggressiveness of cancer, "is 
avmg a pro oun impact on t e....._ _ __,cancer field." He further provides that the Beneficiary's 2014 
Journal of Clinicc docrinology & Metabolism articles were 
cited in the 2015 guidelines on the management ofl I 
cancer as "a basis to recommend the use of mutation as a prognostic genetic marker to guide 
the clinical treatment ofl I cancer." .___ _ _. 
The letters considered above primarily contain attestations of the novelty and utility of the 
Beneficiary's research studies without providing specific examples of contributions that rise to a level 
consistent with major significance. USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory statements. 1756, 
Inc. v. US. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). Overall, however, none of the expert 
letters elaborated or discussed whether the Beneficiary's findings have been implemented beyond 
informing the research of other scientists in the same field, and if so, the extent of their application. 
While the letters praise the Beneficiary's research as original, valuable, and promising, they have not 
sufficiently detailed in what ways his studies have already advanced the state of research in this field 
or elaborated on how the Beneficiaiy' s work has already impacted the wider field beyond the teams 
of researchers who have directly cited his articles. 
The Petitioner also asserts that the citations to the Beneficiary's published work show his worldwide 
influence. The Petitioner places particular emlhasis or a citation to the Beneficiary's work in the 
20151 I guidelines on the management of cancer, as mentioned in the letters of D 
I landl 14 The record contains a portion of those guidelines showing their citation 
to the tw·o articles mentioned previously. The guidelines do not distinguish or highlight the 
Beneficiary's written work from the more than 588 other cited papers. Rather, the authors cited his 
2014 Journal of Clinical Oncology article and three others as a source for suggesting that "aggressive 
behavior of a give~ I carcinoma, including high probability of tumor recurrence, is likely when 
it harbors more than one known oncogenic mutation, and specifically aLJmutation co-occurring 
with d I mutation." The authors also cited his 2014 Journal 
of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism article and five others as a source for establishing that D' 
mutations were found in 7% - 22% ofc=J and 14%-17% ofD, but with a significantly higher 
prevalence in~------~ cancers." The guidelines do not otherwise address the impact of 
this research or the importance of the Beneficiaiy' s findings in these studies, rather, they reflect that 
similar studies had already been undertaken by other researchers. 
The Petitioner further submits the Beneficiary's publication and citation record from 
1
oogle yholar, 
but this evidence does not show that the impact of his work on the overall field of cancer 
research rises to the level of an original contribution of major significance. The fact that the 
Beneficiary has published articles that other researchers have referenced is not, by itself: indicative of 
a contribution of major significance. Publications are not sufficient under this criterion absent 
4 We note that although! l's letter indicates that he chaired the task force that published those guidelines his letter 
does not mention the inclusion of the Beneficiary's written work in the guidelines. 
5 
evidence that they were of "major significance." The Petitioner further provided a 2018 Scimago 
Journal Ranking for eight journals that have published the Beneficiary's work and information from 
the websites of several of those journals listing their impact factors. Although the Petitioner asserts 
that the journal ranking and the citation index impact factors of the journals that have published the 
Beneficiary's work sufficiently establish their impact, this alone is also insufficient to establish that 
any individual aiticle is regarded in the field as majorly significant. In addition, we note that evidence 
does not demonstrate that any specific work of the Beneficiaiy is so widely cited and relied upon that 
it is considered to have made an impact of major significance in his field. The Petitioner has not 
demonstrated, as it asserts, that any of the Beneficiary's five published articles it characterizes as 
highly cited is regarded as an original contribution of major significance. While the Petitioner 
submitted corroborating evidence in the form of expert opinion letters, that evidence, for the reasons 
already discussed, is not sufficient to establish that any of the Beneficiaiy' s research findings, 
individually or collectively, has made a remarkable impact or influence in his field. 
In addition, the record indicates that the Petitioner submitted samples of portions of research and 
review articles that cited to the Beneficiary's work. A review of those articles, though, does not show 
the significance of the Beneficiary's research to the overall field beyond the authors who cited to his 
work. For instance, the Petitioner provided a partial article titled, I I I I (Endocrinology & Metabolism Clinics of North 
America), in which the authors cited to the Beneficiaiy's 2014 articles in The Journal of Clinical 
Endocrinology & Metabolism and the Journal of Clinical Oncology, along with hundreds of other 
articles. 5 One of the submitted partial review aiticles, titled 
I i(NatureR ~-e-v,-·e_w_s_E_n_d_o_c_-r_in_o_l_ogy_)_, -c-it_e_s-to-th-e~ 
Beneficia 's 2014 Journal of Clinical Oncolo article and 2018 article from the same source titled 
~--~' However, the review article does not distinguish or highlight the Beneficiary's written work 
from the more than 74 other cited papers. While the evidence indicates that the Beneficiaiy has 
contributed to what appears to be an active field of research, we cannot determine that every 
publication cited in a research or review article is indicative of an individual scientific contribution of 
major significance. 
The Petitioner also maintains on appeal that reports by media outlets demonstrate "the recognized 
importance of [the Beneficiary's] work." The record contains several articles that do not mention the 
Beneficiary but discuss some of his teams' research findings. For example, two articles published on 
the websites healio.com and cancernetwork.com repmt the findings of his 2018 Journal of Clinical 
Oncology aiticle, that based on a retrospective analysis male sex appeared to be an independent risk 
factor for poor clinical outcomes among patients withl !cancer. 
The Petitioner did not show, however, that such limited media coverage indicates an original 
contribution of major significance in the field. For example, it did not demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary's research and findings resulted in widespread coverage and interest. 
Further, on appeal the Petitioner submits three non-precedent decisions concerning scientific 
researchers who petitioned for a first preference immigrant visa under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), noting 
that "previous AAO decisions ... have repeatedly acknowledged and confirmed the value of the 
5 Although we discuss two sample articles, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
6 
citation record." These decisions were not published as precedents and therefore do not bind USCIS 
officers in future adjudications. See 8 C.F .R. § 103.3( c ). Non-precedent decisions apply existing law 
and policy to the specific facts of the individual case and may be distinguishable based on the evidence 
in the record of proceedings, the issues considered, and applicable law and policy. Nevertheless, we 
note that the Petitioner emphasizes that, in one of the referenced decisions, we determined that 
"documentation showing more than two hundred independent citations" to the petitioner's published 
findings provided "solid evidence that other researchers have been influenced by his work and are 
familiar with it." However, that non-precedent decision also highlights the fact that we placed 
significant weight on the statements of experts who clearly described how the petitioner's scientific 
contributions were both original and of major significance in their field. As discussed, the expert 
opinion letters submitted in this matter do not sufficiently explain and demonstrate the major 
significance of the Beneficiary's contributions. 
Considered together, the evidence consisting of the citations to the Beneficiary's published findings, 
the citation statistics, and the reference letters from his fellow researchers and other experts, establishes 
that the Beneficiary has been a productive researcher, and that his published data and findings have 
been relied upon by others in their own research. It does not demonstrate, however, that the 
Beneficiary has made a contribution of major significance in the field ofl I cancer research. 
Therefore, he has not met this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The record does not satisfy, as required, the evidentiary criteria applicable to individuals of extraordinary 
ability in the sciences: a major, internationally recognized award or at least three of eight possible forms 
of documentation. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A)-(B). Consequently, the Petitioner has not established 
that the Beneficiary is eligible for the 0-1 visa classification as an individual of extraordinary. The appeal 
will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and alternate 
basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7