Lecturer In The Biochemistry Field

The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to establish original scientific contributions of major significance to the field (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v)). Citation data from Clarivate Analytics, indicating articles in the top 1% and 10% of 'Biology & Biochemistry', was deemed unreliable due to a disclaimer and overly broad categorization. Expert letters and media coverage were found insufficient to demonstrate major significance beyond specific research groups or general usefulness. Funding from 'major Chinese agencies' also did not inherently prove major significance. Consequently, the petitioner did not meet the minimum three criteria for extraordinary ability.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to establish a one-time achievement of a major, internationally recognized award or meet at least three of the 10 EB-1A criteria. While the Director found criteria related to published material (iv) and scholarly articles (vi) met, the criterion for original contributions of major significance (v) was not. The AAO affirmed that evidence, including citation data for published articles, conference presentations, and expert letters, did not demonstrate major significance or sustained national/international acclaim, distinguishing moderate significance from the required major significance.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten regulatory criteria for extraordinary ability. While the Petitioner satisfied the criteria for authorship of scholarly articles (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi)) and judging the work of others (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv)), she did not establish a third criterion. Specifically, claims for membership in professional associations, original contributions of major significance, a leading or critical role, and high salary were not met. The evidence for a leading/critical role was insufficient, lacking detailed letters from individuals with personal knowledge. For high salary, the submitted W-2s and salary surveys (New Scientist, NIH, Salary.com) did not demonstrate a 'high salary' relative to others in the field, only 'above average' at best, and some data lacked sufficient comparative basis.