The Petitioner, a researcher specializing in biostatistics, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(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.
SCOPS denied the petition, determining that the Petitioner did not meet at least three or the ten evidentiary criteria. We remanded a subsequent appeal for a final merits determination. On remand, although finding that the Petitioner met the initial evidentiary criteria, SCOPS' final merits determination concluded that he did not establish himself as one of that small percentage to rise to the very top of his field. The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3.
The Petitioner bears the burden ofproof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, we will sustain the appeal.
Law
An individual is eligible for the extraordinary ability classification if they have extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim and their achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation; they seek to enter the United States to continue work in the area of extraordinary ability; and their entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the United States. Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act.
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 a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner may demonstrate international recognition of their achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award). Absent such an achievement, a petitioner must provide p. 2 sufficient qualifying documentation demonstrating that they meet at least three ofthe ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x).
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. USCIS, 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); Rijalv. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011).
Analysis
A. Initial Evidentiary Criteria
The Petitioner is a statistical enetics researcher s ecializing biostatistics, a field that uses statistical methods to study . He holds master's and doctoT degree\' in I lfrom the and is currently employed by and
Company as a'-----~ The Petitioner intends to continue his work researching and .______.lin the United States.
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or shown that he received a major, internationally recognized award, he must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)(x). SCOPS determined that the Petitioner met the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), (v), and (vi), which, respectively, relate to his participation as a judge of others' work in his field, his original contributions of major significance to his field, and his authorship of scholarly articles. SCOPS concluded, however, that the Petitioner did not meet the claimed criteria at (viii) or (ix), which concern an individual's performance in a leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments and, respectively, an individual's salary or remuneration compared with that of others in the field. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the SCOPS did not appropriately weigh certain evidence and did not consider the petition in its entirety when conducting a final merits analysis. Upon review, the record supports SCOPS' determination that the Petitioner met the requirements of the criteria at (iv), (v), and (vi), and we conclude that the Petitioner has also met the criteria at (viii) and (ix).
Regarding whether the Petitioner met the claimed criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), SCOPS determined that letters of support describing the Petitioner's leading and critical roles did not specifically address how his roles were leading or critical or that the organization for which the Petitioner performed any role was distinguished. We observe, however, that the letters of support provide detailed descriptions of the Petitioner's leading and critical roles at I l a longestablished multinational pharmaceutical company generating tens of billions of dollars in annual revenue. A letter from a director at I Idiscusses the Petitioner's critical role within the ' ---------~division; the letter describes the company's use of al I veloped by the Petitioner-"a state-of-the-art technique for I I and that, "compared to other available methodologies ... is highly suitable for processing large p. 3 datasets with thousands of different samples"-as leading to "significant progress inl O O
I
I Iin iderifying '11 Iaffecting the South Asian population."
Another letter from describes the Petitioner's leading role in developing drugs for pain management, emphasizing his coordination and leadership of teams analyzing placebo response data to develop a reliable resource for effectively employing placebo mitigation studies-efforts that earned him a~-------~ among many other accolades within the company. The Petitioner has met the plain language of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii).
As to whether the Petitioner met the claimed criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix), SCOPS determined that salary information submitted for positions in the Petitioner's field was not comparable to the Petitioner's specific position of'.__ __________________," Upon review, we agree with the Petitioner that it is inappropriate to confine analysis ofhis position to his job title, which is internal and specific to his employer. We observe that, in addition to his earnings and compensation documentation, the Petitioner submitted evidence from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the U.S. Department ofLabor, and websites reporting employment compensation data for comparable positions to demonstrate that the Petitioner's earnings met or exceeded the highest salary ranges both nationally and locally. The Petitioner has met the plain language of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). As the Petitioner has met the required initial evidentiary criteria, we will proceed to a final merits determination.
B. Final Merits Determination
To establish eligibility, the Petitioner must demonstrate that he has sustained national or international acclaim and that his achievements have been recognized in his field of expertise. Section 203(b)(1 )(A)(i) of the Act. The Petitioner's level of acclaim and recognition must identify him as one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of his field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) ( defining the term "extraordinary ability").
When making a final merits determination, USCIS considers any potentially relevant evidence of record, even if it does not fit one of the initial regulatory criteria or was not presented as comparable evidence. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(2). The Petitioner bears the burden of explaining the significance ofthe evidence and how it demonstrates achievement of sustained acclaim and recognition in his field. Id. The type and quality ofthe evidence determines the petition's approval or denial. Id.
The Petitioner has included extensive documentation of his achievements as al I researcher specializing in the field oJ I The Petitioner has offered evidence demonstrating his participation as a peer reviewer for articles in his field, evidence ofhis published work in prominent journals, and evidence for how his work has influenced the field in the form of letters from colleagues and experts who understand the significance of his research and who have used his work in expanding their own research. The material of record, in the aggregate, is sufficient to demonstrate the Petitioner's sustained national acclaim as~ lthat his achievements have been recognized in his field of expertise, and that he is among the small percentage who have risen to the very top of his field of endeavor.
I
The Petitioner currently serves on the editorial board of the scientifically prominent!.__ ______. Ias a review editor. At the time his petition was filed, he had reviewed more than fort articles for several hi h-rankin and hi h-im act medical ublications u on invitation includin The Petitioner has also authored and co-authored eer-reviewed articles in to -rankin • oumals such as five of which, as evidenced in the record, ranked in the top ten percent of the most-.... c-it_e_d_p_a_p_e-rs-in_,the fields oft lin their respective years of publication, and two of which ranked in the top one percent.
The Petitioner's work has been cited by researchers both in the United States and abroad by researchers at prominent institutions worldwide, including in the United Kingdom, France, Israel, Japan, Qatar, and Norway. The Petitioner provided supporting documentation to illustrate the substantive importance of the work reflected in his articles, including letters from experts in the field describing the value of his work in furthering their own studies ot1 Irelating to conditions such as I ~a representation of a fraction of hundreds of researchers who have cited his work.
Further, letters of support from individuals who have overseen the Petitioner's work during his employment with I Iand his enrollment at the~-------~discuss his research accomplishments. One accomplishment involved a study by several notable universities in the United States which used a methodology developed by the Petitioner in an investigation of metal exposure and health risks. The Petitioner's method, anl lthat functions as a tool to predict cumulative risk from I land related diseases, "directly facilitated their identification of the I I as having the strongest association with risk oti .... __----;:::========. Thel I consulted the Petitioner about hi~ lmethod and then implemented it as part of their own I Ipractices. The record also contains evidence showing that the Petitioner's methods are used to confirm the soundness of techniques in studies using biostatistical datasets, demonstrating that his work in this area is considered a standard in the field.
Another accomplishment is the Petitioner's development of a.______________,method to apply a baseline model used for genetically well-represented ancestry groups to more targeted groups, the goal of which is to gain improved understanding o~ I across lessrepresented groups. Of his work, a letter ofsupport from his advisor at the time provides the following: rThe Petitioner l emolovs his uniaue combination ofI I I
I In his research completed in 2022, he expanded the global applicability of ________
I. Existing databases are overly reliant on data derived from cohorts of European ancestry, making them less useful for research on other populations. While current studies are examining more diverse populations, [the Petitioner] brid ed the a b develo in a model ca able of ad·ustin p. 5 His novel approach greatly improved the utility ofthese studies for non-European-ancestry populations, demonstrating the value of his distinctive approach ... [as well as] his synergetic combination of skills and his proven effectiveness at combining them to provide unique and valuable results ....
Several letters and studies reference the Petitioner's methods working with I I. For example, regarding a study of the implications ofl I published in~I__.__.,..l_a_l_e_tt_er~from a professor ot1 lwho oversaw the study provides the following:
A'------------------~--------.-------'that serves as a library for researchers . . . . Studies based on'-----~ have produced many valuable results, such as optimizing the doses of certain medicines for seizures and heart disease. I I are and have he! ed to identif
However, the results are only as good as the tools used to perform the study ....
[The Petitioner] conducted simulations to study the substantia~ I that plagued The result was '----------J a '----------;========~=====\ association test, which proved highly useful for analyzin=-,. ___________.
I I However, it showed slightly inflate .________,in dealing with extreme situations. [The Petitioner] corrected this difficulty and enhanced overall computation efficiency in the im~roved version.I I [The Petitioner's] model is now the gold standard inl.________.
In addition to being used to identify a risk factor for the record shows that the Petitioner's methods have been used for the identification o andl Iand the discovery of=================.+1-.n-te_r_a-ct-i-on_s_'-in_v_o-lv_e_d-in...,.... _____......,
His tools have been used in an international study involving researchers from the United Kingdom, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Belgium, and Australia examining the impact of I l resulting in the discovery of I I to aid in its diagnosis. These tools are lauded by researchers in additional letters of support, described in one as follows: improving the ability
'-------------------,-------,----' of researchers everywhere to analyze the'------~ involved in a myriad of diseases and health conditions. Because of its improvements inl f, andI I, it has become the new gold standard for I I analysis. The enhanced ability that [the Petitioner's] methods provide for scientists to study the I I supports improved healthcare outcomes, enhanced well-being, and reduced health disparities across the United States.
As another example of the significance of the Petitioner's methods, a senior at a large company that analyzes DNA to assess r--~-----...---,----,----,--------,-,----------,-..,.,...-....,.,.....----l groups explains his utilization ofthe.__ ____
~method "to improve and.__ ____~findings p. 6 relevant tol l" describing it as having features that "make [it] ideal as a powerful I Itool." He further explains that the Petitioner's contributions "were essential in improving the accuracy and power of~---------~" at the company.
Finally, letters of support also attest to the Petitioner's essential work on projects funded by the federal government for amounts totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars. Two of these projects resulted in papers for which the Petitioner was either the first author or a co-author. The Petitioner used re eatin testing patterns in a I I population to estimate
I lwhich resulted in his team helping India impro~v_e_i-ts--.==~====~========r When considered in its totality, the evidence submitted supports a finding that the Petitioner possesses extraordinary ability. He has demonstrated his elevated earnings within his field and his performance of leading and critical roles for a company having a distinguished reputation. He has shown that he consistently produces articles that receive acclaim in the field, evincing impact consistent with a researcher at the top of his field. The Petitioner has shown that his work has guided research and discoveries in several areas ofI Isuggesting influence that extends far beyond the field of I I. The cumulative submitted evidence is sufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner is an individual of extraordinary ability and that he therefore qualifies for the benefit sought. The totality of the evidence shows that the Petitioner has achieved a level of sustained acclaim in his field through a "career of acclaimed work in his field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. lO1-172, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section 203(b)(l )(A) of the Act. The petition in its entirety demonstrates that the Petitioner possesses a level of expertise consistent with a finding that he is one of a small percentage at the very top ofthe field of endeavor and that he has sustained national acclaim in his field. See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. §204.5(h)(2), (3); Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. See also Matter ofPrice, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 956 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994).
Conclusion
Upon do novo review ofthe record, we conclude that the Petitioner has shown by a preponderance ofthe evidence that he is within the small percentage of individuals who have risen to the very top of his field. The documentation submitted establishes that the Petitioner has sustained national or international acclaim, his achievements have been recognized in his field, he seeks to continue working in the same field, and his entry will substantially benefit prospectively the United States. Accordingly, we will sustain the appeal.
ORDER: The appeal is sustained.