dismissed O-1A Case: Physics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 10161384 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 26, 2021 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (Extraordinary Ability- 0) 
The Petitioner, a university, seeks to classify the Beneficiary, a physicist, as an 0-1 nonimmigrant, a visa 
classification 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 that the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate that the Beneficiary satisfied the initial evidentiary criteria applicable to individuals of 
extraordinary ability in business: 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). 
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 (OHS) 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, OHS 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 
A. Evidentiary Requirements 
The Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary as an assistant professor. The Director determined that 
the Beneficiary did not receive a major, internationally recognized award under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A) and satisfied only two of the eight regulatory criteria under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B): original contributions of major significance at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(5) 
and scholarly articles at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(6). On appeal, the Petitioner demonstrates that 
the Beneficiary fulfills the judging criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(4), discussed further 
below. 
Because the Petitioner has shown that the Beneficiary satisfies the minimum evidentiary requirements 
of at least three criteria, we will consider the totality of the evidence in the record to determine whether 
the Petitioner demonstrated the Beneficiary's eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability.2 
B. Totality Determination 
In a totality determination, we will evaluate whether the Petitioner has established, by a preponderance 
of the evidence, the Beneficiary's sustained national or international acclaim, that he is one of the 
small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor, and that his achievements have 
been recognized through extensive documentation. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(l)(ii)(A)(1), 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(ii), and section 101(a)(15)(O)(i) of the Act.3 In this matter, we conclude that the 
Petitioner has not shown the Beneficiary's eligibility. 
The record reflects that the Beneficiary received a bachelor of science in physics from I I 
University in 2006, a master of science in physics froml !university in 2008, and a doctor of 
philosophy in physics from I I University in 2013. According to his curriculum vitae, the 
1 See also Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010), in which we held that, "truth is to be determined not 
by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality." 
2 See also 2 USCIS Policy Manual M.4(B), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual (providing that as explained in the 
preamble to the final rule at 59 FR 41818, 41820 (Aug. 15, 1994), the evidentiary requirements are not the standard for 
the classification, but are instead the mechanism for establishing whether the standard is met, and that when the evidentiary 
requirements specified are satisfied, an officer proceeds to evaluate the totality of all the evidence in the record to determine 
whether it establishes that the beneficiary has sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage 
who has risen to the very top of his or her field). 
3 See also 2 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at M.4(A) (indicating Black's Law Dictionary's definition of "sustain" as to 
support or maintain, especially over a long period of time and to persist in making an effort over a long period). 
2 
Beneficiary was employed as a postdoctoral research associate at the University! I at 
I Laboratory from 2013 to 2016 and is currently employed as a 
~p-os-td-.-o-c-to-ra--.I-r-es_e_a-rc.,....h-a-ss_o_c-,-ia ..... te at the University! I since 2016. The Beneficiary judged 
others, made original contributions, and authored scholarly articles. However, the record does not 
demonstrate that his professional achievements reflect sustained national or international acclaim or 
that he has is one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See 
section 101(a)(15)(O)(i) of the Act, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(1)(ii)(A)(1) and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii). 
Relating to the Beneficiary's judging experience, the Petitioner presented evidence reflecting that the 
Beneficiary served as a referee nine times for the journals, Physical Review D, Physical Review 
Letters, and the Journal of High Energy Physics 4 However, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that 
these nine instances for three journals contribute to a record of sustained national or international 
acclaim. See section 101(a)(15)(O)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(1)(ii)(A)(1). The Petitioner 
did not establish, for example, how the Beneficiary's experience in refereeing nine journal papers 
compares to others at the very top of the field. In addition, the Petitioner did not show, for instance, 
that the Beneficiary garnered wide attention from the field based on his journal reviews. Without 
evidence that sets the Beneficiary apart from others in his field, such as evidence that he has a 
consistent history of reviewing or judging recognized, acclaimed experts in his field, serving in 
editorial positions for prestigious journals, chairing technical committees for reputable or 
distinguished conferences, or refereeing a substantial number of articles, the Petitioner has not shown 
that the Beneficiary's judging experience places him among that small percentage who has risen to the 
very top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii). 
In regards to the Beneficiary's contributions, the Petitioner provided recommendation letters 
discussin the Beneficia!Y's development of the ~---------------~ 
---------~ , a tool which expands the use of the Lar e Hadron Collider (LHC) to test 
______ in 2012. For instance, "[the Beneficiary's] tool is helping to expand 
.___ ____ _.experiments and interpretations at the LHC" .........,... __ ____,..,,_...,.....,...; [the Beneficiary] 
developed a tool now widely used by international particle physics teams" and "his work was used, 
with acknowledgement, by thd I team who discovered thel la major finding for 
which the original researchers were awarded a Nobel Prize"I I: and "[b]etween 
2012 and 2013, he published a series of articles explaining a tool he developed called th~ I" 
and the "tool has since become widely used and has helped to interpret the experiments carried out at 
the [LHC], one of the leading research facilities in the world"I I. Although the letters 
indicate a contribution made by the Beneficiary over seven years ago, they do not demonstrate his 
recent, significant contributions in the field, showing sustained national or international acclaim. See 
4 The Petitioner claims that it "submitted evidence that [the Beneficiary] has completed reviews for The Journal of High 
Energy Physics, Physical Review Letters, Physical Review D, and the European Physical Journal C" and references 
"Exhibit N" of the initial petition filing. Under "Exhibit N," the Petitioner provided a letter from the American Physical 
Society relating to the Beneficiary's review of eight papers for Physical Review Letters and Physical Review D, emails 
regarding the Beneficiary's review of a paper for the Journal of High Energy Physics, and two screenshots from 
manuscriptcentral.com for "Scores Returned" from the European Physical Journal C for three papers. However, the 
screenshots do not indicate or mention the Beneficiary reviewing articles, nor did the Petitioner point to how the evidence 
shows that he performed reviews for the European Physical Journal C. 
3 
section 101(a)(15)(O)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(l)(ii)(A)(1). 5 Instead, the letters speculate 
on the Beneficiary's futuristic impact in the field. For example, "[the Beneficiary's] proposed research 
would probe substantially further than any existing experiments and would maximize the American 
investment in,__ ______________ ___. neutrino experiments" I I; and 
"[the Beneficiary] and I recently published two articles on the I I 
Theory," and "[o]ur work makes precise predictions of processes at extreme high energies, which will 
be attained by future particle accelerators" I I. (emphasis added). Here, the Petitioner did 
not establish the Beneficiary's sustained national or international acclaim through his continuous, 
influential contributions in the field rather than prospective, potential impacts. 
As it pertains to his publication history, the Petitioner submitted evidence showing that the Beneficiary 
published 23 articles from 2008 - 2019. However, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that this 
publication record is consistent with being among that small percentage who has risen to the very top 
of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii). The Petitioner did not show, for instance, the 
significance of his authorships of 23 papers over an 11-year span or how his publications compare to 
others with similar years of experience who are viewed to be at the very top of the field. 
As authoring scholarly articles is often inherent to the work of scientists and researchers, the citation 
history or other evidence of the influence of the Beneficiary's articles can be an indicator to determine 
the impact and recognition that his work has had on the field and whether such influence has been 
sustained. For example, numerous independent citations for an article authored by the Beneficiary 
may provide solid evidence that his work has been recognized and that other physicists have been 
influenced by his work. The Petitioner provided evidence from Google Scholar showing 1,224 
cumulative citations of the Beneficiary's publications, with his highest cited article in 2012 receiving 
114 citations. However, the Petitioner did not demonstrate the significance or relevance of the 
citations, both cumulatively and individually. For example, the Petitioner did not establish how the 
Beneficiary's citations compare to others in the field or how they show that he is among that small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii).6 
Moreover, although we recognize that older articles may garner more citations and newer articles may 
garner lesser citations based on their length of availability to the field, the Beneficiary's top cited 
papers (35 -114) occurred from publications in 2010 - 2015, with his highest most recent publication 
(30) occurring in 2017. Here, the Petitioner did not show how his more recent published material 
commands attention consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. See section 
101(a)(15)(O)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(l)(ii)(A)(1). 
5 See also 2 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at M.4(A) (providing that if a beneficiary was recognized for a particular 
achievement, the officer should determine whether the beneficiary continues to maintain a comparable level of acclaim in 
the field of expertise since the beneficiary was originally afforded that recognition, and a beneficiary may have achieved 
national or international acclaim in the past but then failed to maintain a comparable level of acclaim thereafter). 
6 The Petitioner also submitted a screenshot from inspirehep.net opining on the breakdown of papers by citations: 
"Renowned papers" (500+ ), "Famous papers" (250-499), "Very well-known papers" (100-249), "Known papers" (10-49), 
"Less known papers" (1-9), and "Unknown papers" (0). Based on the "Published only" papers, the Petitioner has no 
"Renowned" or "Famous" papers and only two "Well-known" papers occurring 6-7 years ago, which is not indicative of 
sustained national or international acclaim or reflective of being among that small percentage who has risen to the very top 
of the field of endeavor. See section 101(a)(15)(O)(i) of the Act, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(1)(ii)(A)(1), and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(ii). 
4 
Beyond the three evidentiary requirements satisfied by the Beneficiary, we consider additional 
documentation in the record to determine whether the totality of the evidence demonstrates eligibility. 
Here, for the reasons discussed below, we find that the evidence does not establish that the Beneficiary 
has sustained national or international acclaim and is among that small percentage at the top of his 
field. 
The Petitioner provided evidence reflecting that the Beneficiary received a 200~scholarship 
while studf nq at I I University "to pursue PhD-level research at L____funiversity." 
Although a I scholarship "brings graduate students, early career professionals, and artists from 
abroad to conduct research and study in the United States," the Petitioner did not demonstrate how 
receiving a scholarship intended for individuals at the beginning of their careers establishes that the 
Beneficiary is among that small percentage at the very top of the field. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii). 
Here, the Beneficiary received a scholarship while competing against other graduate students and early 
career professionals rather than accomplished, recognized professionals who are viewed at the top of 
the field. Moreover, the Petitioner did not show how receiving an academic scholarship over 10 years 
ago, geared towards furthering his studies, reflects the Beneficiary's sustained national or international 
acclaim in the physics field. See section 101(a)(15)(O)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(l)(ii)(A)(1). The Petitioner did not demonstrate, for example, that the Beneficiary garnered 
prestigious, recognized awards for his accomplishments or achievements in the field instead of 
scholarships to further pursue a postdoctoral degree. 
Further, in order to show published material about the Beneficiary and his work, the Petitioner offered 
a single 2015 article from,___ ______ ___,that referenced the Beneficiary's Physical Review 
D article. However, the article never mentions the Beneficiary, which is not indicative of his sustained 
national or international acclaim from the field. See section 101(a)(15)(O)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(l)(ii)(A)(1). In addition, the Petitioner did not establish how a single article without any 
discussion of the Beneficiary shows a level of recognition consistent with being among that small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii). 
Moreover, while the Petitioner provided a letter from I I aeoerallv indicating that the 
Beneficiary was "highly involved in the planning process" at the I ]Accelerator 
Laboratory andl I Laboratory, the letter does not offer detailed, specific information 
showing how his capacity or position garnered national or international acclaim from the field. See 
section 101(a)(15)(O)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(l)(ii)(A)(1). Similarly, the record contains 
evidence of the Beneficiar}!'s involvement on committees for workshops and forums, such as the 
"PITT PACC Workshop: ,___ __________ ~" However, the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate how the Beneficiary's participation resulted in wide attention or recognition from the 
field or how the evidence reflects the Beneficiary's place as being among that small percentage who 
has risen to the very top of the field. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii). 
The record as a whole, including the evidence discussed above, does not establish the Beneficiary's 
eligibility for the benefit sought. The Petitioner seeks a visa classification, intended for individuals 
already at the top of their respective fields, rather than those progressing toward the top. While the 
Petitioner need not establish that there is no one more accomplished to qualify for the classification 
sought, the record is insufficient to demonstrate that the Beneficiary has sustained national or 
international acclaim and is among that small percentage at the very top of his field. See section 
5 
101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Act, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(l)(ii)(A)(1) and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii). 
Furthermore, as indicated, the Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary as an assistant professor. 
However, the submitted evidence relates almost entirely to the Beneficiary's career as a researcher 
without documentation establishing any acclaim, recognition, or experience as a professor. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not shown the sustained nature of the Beneficiary's national or 
international acclaim as a researcher or scientist and continuation of that acclaim as an educator. 
111. CONCLUSION 
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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6