This appeal was fully successful
The AAO sustained the appeal, finding that the petitioner satisfied at least three of the ten regulatory criteria and demonstrated extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim. The Director's adverse finding on the original contributions criterion was reversed based on new citation evidence submitted on appeal.
Next step: a full merits review weighing all the evidence together.
A biomedical researcher appealing a Texas Service Center denial of his EB-1A petition succeeded before the AAO. The Director had accepted two criteria (judging and scholarly articles) but rejected the original contributions criterion for lack of outside-sourced citation data. On appeal, the petitioner submitted external corroboration of his citation record and argued for holistic evaluation of his contributions. The AAO agreed, finding the Director erred by evaluating contribution factors individually rather than collectively, and concluded that the petitioner's extensive citations, prestigious publication venues, and expert testimony about groundbreaking findings in linker region research satisfied the third criterion. After applying the Kazarian two-step analysis, the AAO found the petitioner demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim and belongs to the small percentage at the very top of his field.
What worked: External citation corroboration submitted on appeal was decisive in overcoming the Director's concern about unverified citation data. Expert letters from objective scientists—not just close colleagues—specifically described the petitioner's work as 'groundbreaking' and 'pioneering,' reshaping the field. The AAO's holistic view of multiple reinforcing factors (originality, build-upon by others, prestigious journals, high citation counts) collectively established major significance.
What failed: Citation lists and charts lacking outside-source attribution were initially rejected by the Director and did not independently satisfy the original contributions criterion. General assertions that work was original and presented at conferences, without independent corroboration, were insufficient to show major significance on their own.
Takeaway: When citation evidence is challenged for lacking outside-source verification, petitioners should supplement with independent databases or third-party citation reports before or on appeal. Evidence of major significance is evaluated holistically, so presenting all contributing factors together—publication quality, citation volume, expert testimony, and downstream reliance by other researchers—is more persuasive than addressing each factor in isolation.
Cases like this are frequently used by attorneys when responding to RFEs or building initial petitions. The evidence patterns that worked (or failed) here directly reflect what USCIS officers look for when evaluating EB-1A criteria.
● Evidence that moved the needle
- External citation corroboration submitted on appeal was decisive in overcoming the Director's concern about unverified citation data
- Expert letters from objective scientists—not just close colleagues—specifically described the petitioner's work as 'groundbreaking' and 'pioneering,' reshaping the field
- The AAO's holistic view of multiple reinforcing factors (originality, build-upon by others, prestigious journals, high citation counts) collectively established major significance.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- Citation lists and charts lacking outside-source attribution were initially rejected by the Director and did not independently satisfy the original contributions criterion
- General assertions that work was original and presented at conferences, without independent corroboration, were insufficient to show major significance on their own.
Criterion-by-criterion breakdown
Judging the work of others
MetDirector found this criterion met; petitioner demonstrated peer review of scholarly articles for multiple journals. AAO affirmed.
Original contributions of major significance
Reversed in their favorDirector found this criterion not met, citing insufficient outside corroboration of citations. On appeal, petitioner submitted external citation confirmation; AAO reversed, finding contributions of major significance based on citation record, publication venues, and expert letters describing groundbreaking findings.
Authorship of scholarly articles
MetDirector found this criterion met; petitioner authored published articles in distinguished journals. AAO affirmed.
External corroboration of citation record submitted on appeal confirming extensive citations in prominent publications
Peer review activity for multiple scholarly journals establishing judging criterion
Published scholarly articles in distinguished journals with significant individual and aggregate citation counts
Citations appearing in prestigious journals, including review articles building upon petitioner's work
Expert reference letters from objective experts, including a Professor of Molecular Cell Biology in the Netherlands, detailing specific groundbreaking contributions and major significance to the field
Expert characterization of petitioner's work as 'pioneering' and reshaping the field of linker region research
Citation lists and charts not from outside sources were initially found insufficient by the Director to corroborate citation claims
Director evaluated each element of the original contributions criterion individually rather than considering them collectively as required for a holistic assessment of major significance.
Director discounted citation evidence solely because the lists and charts were not from outside sources, without considering corroborating documentation available on appeal.
Completed
I-140 filed
Biomedical researcher with expertise in molecular cell biology and linker region research
Completed
Texas Service Center — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2015-12-30
AAO decision — Sustained
The AAO sustained the appeal, finding that the petitioner satisfied at least three of the ten regulatory criteria and demonstrated extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim. The Director's adverse finding on the original contributions criterion was reversed based on new citation evidence submitted on appeal.
Find this useful? A coffee helps keep Case Reviewer free and ad-free.
Buy me a coffee