Case Study: AAO dismissed an EB1-A Appeal of a Petition for a Researcher in the Field of Neurological Research
by Victoria Chen, Esq., J.D.
Background: The petitioner is engaged in medical research and publication. It seeks to employ the beneficiary permanently in the United States as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(1)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability in the field of neurological research.
USCIS Decision: The director determined the petitioner had not established that the beneficiary qualifies for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability.
Evidence 1 Counsel submitted evidence that the beneficiary has participated in the invention, Method of Preparation of ALFA-1 Globulin, the chemical used to transmit cancer-treating materials to the brain, has published the results of his research, and has published articles.
AAO's Analysis The record does not adequately set the achievements of the beneficiary apart from others researchers who also have advanced degrees, conduct research, and publish their results to the extent that he may be said to be within the small percentage who have risen to the very top of his field of endeavor.
Evidence 2 Counsel also submitted evidence that the beneficiary is a member of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery.
AAO's Analysis : The by-laws submitted from the International Society for Pediatric Nuerosurgery state that active membership in the organization is restricted to neurosurgeons primarily interested in pediatric neurosurgery. This does not indicate that the organization demands outstanding achievement of its members, as required by the regulation.
The AAO concluded that review of the record does not establish that the beneficiary has distinguished himself as a medical researcher to such an extent that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence indicates that the beneficiary has worked in his field, but is not persuasive that the beneficiary's achievements set him significantly above the great majority of researchers in his field of expertise. And therefore, the appeal is dismissed.