dismissed O-1A Case: Management Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 19, 2024 In Re: 33412453 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Extraordinary Ability- 0) 
The Petitioner , an international management consulting firm, seeks to classify the Beneficiary as an 
individual of extraordinary ability. This 0-1 nonimmigrant visa classification is available to 
individuals 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. § 1101(a)(15)(O)(i) . 
The Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding the Beneficiary had not 
satisfied the initial evidentiary criteria applicable to individuals of extraordinary ability: either receipt 
of 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). The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence . 
Matter ofChawathe , 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc. , 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo 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 10l(a)(l5)(o)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii), (iii). 1 
II. ANALYSIS 
Because the Petitioner did not indicate or establish the Beneficiary has received a major, 
internationally recognized award, it must demonstrate the Beneficiary satisfies at least three of the 
alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(l)-(8). The Director determined the 
Beneficiary fulfilled only two criteria, judging under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(B)(iii)(4) and scholarly 
articles under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(B)(iii)(6). On appeal, the Petitioner maintains the Beneficiary 
meets three additional categories. 2 
Published material in professional or major trade publications or other major media 
about the alien, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is 
sought, which shall include the title, date, and author ofsuch published material, and 
any necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(3). 
The Petitioner claims the Beneficiary's eligibility for this criterion based on the Beneficiary's 
authorship of scholarly articles in professional publications, and the reference and citation of the 
Beneficiary's work by others in their published works. At the outset, the 0-1 nonimmigrant 
regulations provide separate criteria for these eligibility claims. Specifically, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(B)(iii)(6) provides "[e]vidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, 
in professional journals, or other major media," which the Director determined the Beneficiary met. 
Moreover, the reference and citation of an individual's work by others in their own published work is 
evaluated under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(B)(iii)(5), requiring "[e]vidence of the alien's 
original scientific, scholarly, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field," 
which we will consider later in this decision. 3 
For this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate published material "about the alien, relating to the 
alien's work in the field for which classification is sought." 4 Because the Beneficiary's published 
1 See also 2 users Policy Manual, M.4(C)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanaul. 
2 We consider any previous eligibility claims not raised on appeal to be waived. See, e.g., Matter of O-R-E-, 28 T&N Dec. 
330, 336 n.5 (BIA 2021) (citing Matter ofR-A-M-, 25 T&N Dec. 657, 658 n.2 (BIA 2012)). 
3 See generally 2 users Policy Manual, supra, at M.4(C)(2) (instructing that documentation reflecting published research 
has been highly cited relative to other works in that field, may be probative of the significance of the beneficiary's 
contributions to the field of endeavor). 
4 See generally 2 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at M.4(C)(2) (providing that published material that includes only a brief 
citation or passing reference to the beneficiary's work is not "about" the beneficiary, relating to the beneficiary's work in 
the field, as required under this criterion). 
2 
research and articles citing to the Beneficiary's work are not "about the alien," they do not meet the 
plain language of this regulatory criterion. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not show that the Beneficiary fulfills this criterion. 
Evidence ofthe alien's original scientific, scholarly, or business-related contributions 
ofmajor significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(5). 
Analysis under this criterion focuses on whether the beneficiary's original work constitutes major, 
significant contributions in the field. 5 The Petitioner argues the Beneficiary's eligibility for this 
criterion based on her "authored publications that have been published in massively impactful 
professional journals." Evidence that the beneficiary's work was funded, patented, or published, while 
potentially demonstrating the work's originality, will not necessarily establish, on its own, the work is 
of major significance in the field. 6 Here, the Petitioner did not show how the publication of articles 
in highly ranked or popular journals automatically demonstrates the research and work to be original 
contributions of major significance. Following this argument, any person whose paper was published 
in a "massively impactful professional journal," would establish a contribution of major significance, 
regardless of the paper's impact, influence, or effect in the field. Moreover, publications bearing high 
rankings or impact factors reflect the publications' overall citation rates; they do not establish the 
reported research's influence or automatically indicate a contribution of major significance in the field. 
Further, the Petitioner contends that the Petitioner's work "has been cited multiple times." The record 
reflects the Petitioner submitted evidence of the Petitioner's citations from Google Scholar. Again, 
this criterion requires the Petitioner to establish the Beneficiary's original contributions of major 
significance in the field. Generally, citations can serve as an indication that the field has taken interest 
in a beneficiary's research or written work. Published research that has provoked widespread 
commentary on its importance from others working in the field, and documentation that it has been 
highly cited relative to other works in that field, may be probative of the significance of the 
beneficiary's contributions to the field of endeavor. 7 Here, the Petitioner has not shown how the 
Beneficiary's citation figures are commensurate with contributions of major significance. The 
Petitioner did not articulate the significance or relevance of the citation data. For example, the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate that her citations are unusually high in her field or how they compare 
to other articles considered to have been majorly significant. Although the citations indicate the 
Beneficiary's research and work has received some attention from the field, the Petitioner did not 
establish that the Beneficiary's citation numbers to her individual articles represent majorly significant 
contributions in the field. 
Finally, the Petitioner asserts the submission of testimonial letters established the Beneficiary's 
contributions of major significance. In general, the letters recount the Beneficiary's research and 
findings and indicate their publications in journals or citation by others. Although they reflect the 
novelty of her work, they do not sufficiently articulate how the Beneficiary's research and findings 
have been considered of such importance and how their impact rises to the level of major significance 
5 See generally 2 USC1S Policy Manual, supra, at M.4(C)(2). 
6 Id. 
7 See generally 2 USC1S Policy Manual, supra, at M.4(C)(2). 
3 
required by this regulatory criterion. For instance, the letter from Dr. C-A-F- stated that the 
Beneficiary "investigated severe vision loss caused by abnormal blood vessel growth in eye conditions 
such as wet age-related macular degeneration, diabetic retinopathy, and retinopathy of prematurity," 
and "[t]hese findings present the inhibition of NCKl/2-dependent pericyte migration as an attractive 
new treatment strategy for retinopathy." 8 Although the letter describes the Beneficiary's research and 
indicate the findings, the letter does not further elaborate and describe how the Beneficiary's research 
or work has significantly influenced the field in a major way. 
Detailed letters from experts in the field explaining the nature and significance of the beneficiary's 
contribution(s) may also provide valuable context for evaluating the claimed original contributions of 
major significance, particularly when the record includes documentation corroborating the claimed 
significance. 9 Submitted letters should specifically describe the beneficiary's contributions and its 
significance to the field and should also set forth the basis of the writer's knowledge and expertise. 10 
Here, for the reasons discussed above, the letters do not contain specific, detailed information 
explaining the unusual influence or high impact the Beneficiary's research or work has had on the 
field, demonstrating that her work has risen to a level of major significance in the field. 
Accordingly, considered both individually and collectively, the Petitioner has not shown the 
Beneficiary has made original contributions of major significance in the field. 
Evidence that the alien has been employed in a critical or essential capacity for 
organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(7). 
The Petitioner argues the Beneficiary's eligibility for this criterion based on her "critical roles" for the 
To show a critical role, the evidence should establish that the beneficiary has contributed in a way that 
is of significant importance to the organization or establishment's activities. 11 For a supporting role 
to be considered critical or essential, USCIS considers other factors, such as whether the beneficiary's 
performance in the role is (or was) integral or important to the organization or establishment's goals 
or activities, especially in relation to others in similar positions within the organization. 12 It is not the 
title of the beneficiary's role, but rather the beneficiary's duties and performance in the role that 
determines whether the role is ( or was) critical or essential. 13 
As it relates tol Ithe Petitioner references a letter from Dr. A-E- who indicated the Beneficiary 
served as a "Ph.D. research assistant" and "played a pivotal role in fulfilling this mission by constantly 
generating novel ideas and producing solid research data," and "[h]er work not only expanded our 
understanding of signaling pathways controlling vascular development but also contributed to 
8 Although we discuss a sampling letter, we have reviewed and considered the other submitted letters, which contain the 
same broad statements without specifically explaining how the Beneficiary's work is considered in the field to be majorly 
significant. 
9 See generally 2 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at M.4(C)(2). 
10 Id. 
11 See generally 2 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at M.4(C)(2). 
12 Id. 
13 Id. 
4 
I 
translating research findings into practical applications for improving human health." Regarding 
I the Petitioner references a letter from Dr. C-G- who indicated the Beneficiary served as a 
"Research Fellow in Neurobiology" and "managed to use the AAV and mouse genetic platform in 
my lab and achieved screening of 5 candidate genes," and "[t]his finding is essential for building and 
continuing her project and will be followed up by other researchers to unreal the novel mechanism." 
Neither letter provides specific, detailed information explaining how the Beneficiary contributed in a 
way that was of significant importance to While the letters briefly discuss her 
involvement in research with the center or laboratory as a Ph.D. research assistant or research fellow, 14 
they do not elaborate or articulate how the Beneficiary's contributions affected the respective activities 
at a level of a critical capacity consistent with this regulatory criterion. 15 
Without further information explaining the critical nature of the Beneficiary's contributions to 
the Petitioner did not establish the Beneficiary satisfies this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner did not show the Beneficiary meets three categories of evidence. As such, we need not 
provide a totality determination to establish whether the Beneficiary has sustained national or 
international acclaim and is one of the small percentage who has arisen to the very top of the field. 
See section 10l(a)(l5)(0)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii) and (iii). 16 Accordingly, we 
reserve this issue. 17 Consequently, the Petitioner has not established the Beneficiary's eligibility for 
the 0-1 visa classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for 
the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 18 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
14 See generally 2 USC1S Policy Manual, supra, at M.4(C)(2) (providing examples of employment in a critical or essential 
capacity, such as a senior faculty or senior research position for a distinguished academic department or program or a 
senior research position for a distinguished non-academic institution or company). 
15 Id. (stating that detailed letters from persons with personal knowledge of the significance of the beneficiary's role can 
be particularly helpful in analyzing this criterion). 
16 See also 2 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at M.4(B). 
17 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory 
findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516,526 n.7 
(BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where applicants do not otherwise meet their burden of proof). 
18 Electronic records reflect that USCIS previously approved an immigrant petition for the Beneficiary as an individual of 
extraordinary ability under section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. However, based on the record before us and for the reasons 
discussed in this decision, the Petitioner did not establish eligibility for this nonimmigrant classification. 
5