U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

MATTER OF M-K-Y-

Non-Precedent Decision of the Administrative Appeals Office

DATE: NOV. 24.2017

APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION

PETITION: FORM 1-140. IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER

The Petitioner, a pharmacologist seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in the sciences. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(I )(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 two of the initial evidentiary criteria. of which he must meet at least three.

On appeal, the Petitioner submits documentation and a brief stating that he satisfies at least three criteria.

Upon de novo review. we will dismiss the appeal.

I. LAW

Section 203(b)(l )(A) of the Act makes visas available to qualified 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 M-K-Y-

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 m~jor.

internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence. then he or she must provide documentation that meets at least three of the ten categories 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 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. USCJS. 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 20 I 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. USCJS, 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 (~fChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369.376 (AAO 2010).

II. ANALYSIS

The Petitioner is a pharmacologist who is engaged in a post-doctoral research fellowship at the Because the Petitioner has not indicated or 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). In denying the petition. the Director found that the Petitioner met two criteria: judging under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and scholarly articles under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi).

On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he also meets the following criteria: prizes or awards under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), original contributions under § 204.5(h)(3 )(v), and leading or critical role under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). We have reviewed all ofthe evidence in the record. and conclude it does not support a finding that the Petitioner satisfies the plain language requirements of at least three criteria.

2

.

Matter of M-K-Y-

Documentation of the alien's receipt ollesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awardsfhr excellence in thefield (?l endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i).

The Petitioner contends that he received awards bestowed by national organizations. which also "attract researchers from across the globe.'' 1 The reputation or scope of the awarding entities. however, is not the determining factor for this criterion. Rather, the Petitioner must demonstrate that his prizes or awards are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field. The record reflects that the Petitioner submitted a 2015 award for team excellence from the a 2015 and 2013 · award from the : a 2013 research award for contribution to research in the pharmaceutical science from the

Regarding his 20 15 director of

and the 2014 and 2015 appointment.

team excellence award, the Petitioner references a letter from who stated that the ''team· s work was also

recognized within the ... for its exceptional work in the realm of warfarin sodium products quality assessment." Although describes why the team received the award. she did not show that the greater field recognizes the significance of the award. Accordingly, the Petitioner did not establish that his team award is nationally or internationally known for excellence outside of the

As it pertains to the awards, the Petitioner provided a screenshot from website ref1ecting the mission, vision, and core values of the association. Further. the Petitioner submitted a letter from awards and fellow coordinator at who indicated that these awards enable individuals to travel to the annual meeting and exposition and present their research. The letter also stated that in 2015. the received 450 applications and were awarded. While provided background information regarding the purpose and selection criteria, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the awards are nationally or internationally recognized by the tield as awards for excellence. Similarly. as it relates to his 2013 award. the Petitioner offered screenshots from website indicating the organization's history and announcing the availability of the awards for 2015. The screenshots, however, do not demonstrate that awards are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence by the tield.

In addition, the Petitioner contends that the Director erred by discounting the fellowship as academic in nature since it accepts both students and professionals. The record contains letters from

professor and vice dean at who indicates he was a member of the team that selected the Petitioner for the fellowship. states that as a

1 While the Petitioner previously claimed eligibility for the provision of comparable evidence under 8 C.F.R.

§ 204.5(h)(4) as it related to this criterion, he does not continue to do so in his brief, nor does the record suppot1 a finding that he meets it. Accordingly, we will not further address this issue in our decision.

.

Matter of M-K-Y-

postdoctoral fellowship, the fellowship "by definition follows the conclusion of the highest possible stage of formal scientific education.'' He also attests that the fellowship is "'extremely competitive" and is awarded based on a candidate's work and achievements. rather than ·'simply having good grades." Although letter speaks to the competitive selection process of the award, he does not sufficiently explain or establish its national or international recognition as an award for excellence in the field, nor does the record otherwise demonstrate such recognition. For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not establish that he meets this criterion.

Evidence of the alien's participation. either individually or on a panel, as ajudge r~fthe work of others in the same or an alliedfield ofspec(ficationfor which classification is sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv).

The Director found that the Petitioner participated as a judge of the work of others. The record indicates that the Petitioner served as a reviewer of manuscripts for professional publications. such as the Accordingly. we agree with the Director's determination, and the Petitioner demonstrated that he meets this criterion.

Evidence (~l the alien's original scientific, scholar(v. artistic. athletic. or husiness-rela!ed contributions ofmajor sign(ficance in thefield. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v).

The Petitioner contends that his scholarly articles, conference presentations. and recommendation letters demonstrate his eligibility for this criterion. In order to satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3 )(v), a petitioner must establish that not only has he made original contributions but that they have been of major significance in the field. For example. a petitioner may show that the contributions have been widely implemented throughout the tield. have remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major significance in the field.

First, although the Petitioner contends that the publication of his research is evidence of its significance, the record does not sufficiently demonstrate that his written work has been considered of major significance in the field. Regarding the articles written by the Petitioner and the journals mentioned in several of the reference letters, he provided documentation indicating approximately 17 citations for 17 publications.2 The Petitioner, however, has not sutliciently identified the specific contributions he has made through his written work, nor has he demonstrated that the citations of his published articles are commensurate with contributions of major significance. Commonly. citations can serve as an indication that the field has taken interest in a petitioner's work. Although the Petitioner submitted samples of articles that cited to his work. they do not feature his articles or extensively discuss them. Moreover, the Petitioner's reference letters generally indicate the publication of his research without sufficiently explaining how his written work has impacted the field. For example, professor at stated that the Petitioner

2 The Petitioner provided evidence showing that his highest cited article, "

garnered five citations.

4

.

Matter of M-K- Y-

"has published prolifically, both in the area of his research and others" and listed a sampling of publications. 3 does not specifically address which articles he considers to be important contributions or how they have significantly influenced the field.

Furthermore, several of the recommendation letters indicate that the Petitioner was asked to present at conferences his research findings. For example, the letters from and associate professor at stated that associations, such as invited the Petitioner to present at its annual meeting, and the interest in the Petitioner's work is shown by their willingness to pay for his travel expenses. The letters do not explain how the Petitioner's conferences or presented works have impacted or influenced the field to establish original contributions of major significance. Participation in a conference demonstrates that his findings were shared with others, but being chosen to present in-and-of-itself does not indicate the major significance of his contribution. Publications and presentations are not sufticient under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that they were of "major significance ... Kazarian v. USCJS. 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009). aff"d in part. 596 F.3d 1115. In 2010. the Kazarian court reaffirmed its holding that we did not abuse our discretion in our adverse finding relating to this criterion. 596 F.3d at 1122. Here, the Petitioner has not shown that his presentations rise to a level of an original contribution of major significance in the field.

In addition, the Petitioner argues that his research produced major advances in the realm of cancer treatment methods and pharmaceutical manufacturing techniques. While the record includes attestations of the potential impact of his work, the Petitioner's references do not provide examples of how his research has already influenced the field. For instance. explained the studies performed by the Petitioner and concluded that the research "will greatly improve treatment outcomes and patient safety," "will dramatically improve the use of warfarin sodium in treatment regimens,'' and "will play a major role in advancing the pharmaceutical science." In addition, a letter from professor at stated that the Petitioner developed a treatment method that is a "'breakthrough of great promise and a patent is currently pending for it," and that his '"research represents concrete advances that will have a major impact on patients." Moreover, a letter from program director of the asserts that the Petitioner's work "can be potentially translated from research to practice.'' Also, a letter from director of pharmaceutics at indicated that he was "impressed both by the innovative character of his research. as well as the impact it will have in the professional and on the medical field at large.'' These statements. however. are prospective and do not show that the Petitioner's work has already had this effect. An expectation regarding the possible future impact of the Petitioner's work is not evidence that his work is considered by the greater field to be of major significance. S'ee Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 (upholding a finding that a ballroom dancer had not met this criterion because she did not corroborate her impact in the field).

3 Although we discuss only a sampling of the letters, we have reviewed and considered each one.

.

Matter of M-K-Y-

The letters considered above do not provide specific examples of how the Petitioner's contributions rise to a level consistent with major significance. Letters that repeat the regulatory language but do not explain how an individual"s contributions have already influenced the field are insufficient to establish original contributions of major significance in the field. Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036. aff"d in part 596 F.3d at 1115. In 2010, the Kazarian court reiterated that the USC IS' conclusion that the "letters from physics professors attesting to fthe petitioner's] contributions in the field" were insufficient was "consistent with the relevant regulatory language." 596 F.3d at 1122. Moreover. USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory statements. 1756. Jnc. v. The US. Att ~v Gen.. 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990). Accordingly, the Petitioner did not establish that he satisfies this criterion.

Evidence of the alien's authorship (?l scholarly articles in the field. in pro(essional or major trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3 )(vi).

As discussed above, the Petitioner authored articles that were published in professional journals. such as the Therefore. the Director found that the Petitioner satisfied this criterion, and we agree with that determination.

Evidence that the alien has perfhrmed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii).

The Petitioner asserts that he performed in a critical role for the because his research promotes its research goals and significantly advances the agency's mission.4 Specifically. the Petitioner indicates that he examined the effect of manufacturing techniques on medication. researched into particular growth in lyophilized medications. and developed abuse-deterrent formulations for opioids.

In general, a critical role is one in which a petitioner was responsible for the success or standing of the organization or establishment. A letter from acting associate director for regulatory science at the states that the Petitioner "has contributed to several key projects ... Further, a letter from claims that "without a doubt, [the Petitioner's] contributions have been vital to advances made by our research teams, with [the Petitioner[ making a particularly noteworthy impact in the development of new assessment methods for warfarin sodium products and abuse deterrent (AD) opioids." Although the individuals confirm the importance of his contributions to the research teams, they do not establish that he performed in a critical role for the as a whole.

While the Petitioner worked on various projects for the and supported its mission, he did not provide sufficient documentary evidence to show that his duties and responsibilities as a post­doctoral fellow were critical to the greater Here. the Petitioner did not establish that his role

4 The Petitioner does not claim in his brief that he performed for a leading role for the demonstrate it.

nor does the record

.

Matter of M-K-Y-

contributed to the success, standing, or overall reputation of the did not demonstrate that he satisfies this criterion.

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Petitioner

The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria. As a result we need not provide the type of final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise that we have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a finding that the Petitioner has established the level of expertise required f()r the classification sought. For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that he qualities for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability.

ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.

Cite as Matter o{M-K-Y-, ID# 722519 (AAO Nov. 24, 2017)