dismissed EB-1A Case: Animal Health Science

identaing dsEB deleted b~ 
pvent clearly unwmted 
invasion of personal, privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
p 22 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: FCe 2 9 2Oofl 
EAC 06 012 50196 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
Robert P. ~ie&, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal.' The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in the sciences, pursuant to 
section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1 153(b)(l)(A). The 
director deterrnined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim 
necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief. For the reasons discussed below, the petitioner has not overcome 
the director's bases for denial. As discussed at the end of this decision, our conclusions based on the 
evidence as it relates to the regulatory criteria are consistent with an analysis of the evidence in the 
aggregate. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are 
aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph 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 in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
1 
Counsel requests that the appeal "be granted" or "in the alternative, that this matter be treated as a Motion 
to Reopen and that said Motion [be] granted." The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 103.3(a)(2)(iii) allows the 
director to treat an appeal as a motion for the purpose of taking favorable action prior to forwarding the 
appeal to this office. Counsel provides no authority that would allow the director to consider an appeal as a 
motion after the AAO has already dismissed the appeal on the merits. The AAO's authority over the service 
centers is comparable to the relationshp between a court of appeals and a district court. Louisiana 
Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 2000 WL 282785 at *3 (E.D. La.), afd, 248 F.3d 1 139 (5th Cir. 200 I), cert. 
denied, 534 U.S. 819 (2001). The director did not take favorable action pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
5 103.3(a)(2)(iii). Rather, the director forwarded the appeal to the AAO. As we are upholding the director's 
decision on the merits, there is no longer any legal basis for the director to consider the appeal as a motion. 
Yage 3 
Citizenshp and Immigration Services (CIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) 
have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals seeking 
immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-9 (Nov. 29, 1991). 
As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of expertise indicating that the 
individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
8 C.F.R. @ 204.5(h)(2). The specific requirements for supporting documents to establish that an alien 
has sustained national or international acclaim and recognition in his or her field of expertise are set 
forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5@(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It 
should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that he has sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as a postdoctoral 
associate. While the statute and pertinent regulations do not specifically preclude someone early in his 
post-academic career fiom qualifying for this exclusive classification, a petitioner in an entry-level 
position bears a heavy burden. We will not narrow the petitioner's field to those at his level of 
employment. Rather, the petitioner must demonstrate that he is within the small percentage at the top 
of his field, including the most renowned and experienced members of his field. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5@)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international 
recognized award). Baning the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, at 
least three of which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualify 
as an alien of extraordinary ability. The petitioner has submitted evidence that, he claims, meets the 
following  riter ria.^ 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the$eld of endeavor. 
In 2000, the petitioner received a Science and Technology Agency (STA) Fellowshp fiom the Japan 
International Science and Technology Exchange Center (JISTEC). This fellowship funded his research 
at the National Institute of Animal Health in Japan for two years. The director request additional 
evidence relating to this criterion, stating that institutional fellowships are insufficient. In response to 
the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted materials about the fellowship 
reflecting that the STA is a Japanese government agency and that the fellowship was established in 
1988 "to offer opportunities for excellent young foreign researchers." The qualifications for the 
fellowship indicate that a fellow must possess a doctorate, be no older than 35 years old or have 
received his Ph.D. in the last six years, be in good health and have the necessary language ability to 
pursue research activities in Japan. The director did not specifically address this criterion in the final 
decision, although the director did conclude that the petitioner does not meet any of the regulatory 
criteria. 
2 
 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
Counsel reiterates on appeal that the petitioner received the STA fellowship. Counsel notes that an 
employee of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory also received an STA fellowship. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5@)(3)(i) requires the receipt of a prize or award 
for excellence. The phrase "prize or award" is not open to wide interpretation. Rather, a prize or award 
is principally designed to recognize past achievement and is not generally contingent on future 
employment commitments. A fellowship is not an award or prize for excellence. The stipend that 
supports the research is contingent on participating in the fellowship program and conducting hture 
research after selection for the fellowshp. The record lacks evidence that the STA fellowship is 
designed for principal investigators rather than to facilitate training for recent graduates under the 
guidance of amentor at a ~a~&ese institution. Notably, the 
 current mentor, - 
asserts that the fellowslup allowed the petitioner "the opportunity to train in Japan." Moreover, 
limited to young researchers or those who have recently obtained a Ph.D. is not persuasive 
evidence that the recipient is one of the small percentage at the top of his field. As stated above, we 
will not narrow the petitioner's field to postdoctoral associates or recent graduates. Significantly, the 
issue is not that the petitioner was a recent graduate when he received the fellowship, but that the 
fellowship itself is limited to young or newly graduated researchers. Without evidence that the most 
renowned and experienced members of the field aspire to win STA fellowships, we cannot conclude 
that the fellowship can serve to meet this criterion. 
We acknowledge that, in certain cases, the nature of an employment position, while not a prize or 
award, can be indicative of the required sustained national or international acclaim. Such a position, 
however, would have be a leading or critical role for an organization or establishment with a 
distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(ix). Counsel has also asserted that, as an STA fellow, 
the petitioner performed a leading or critical role for his host institution. That claim will be considered 
below under the appropriate criterion. 
The record also contains evidence of a travel award. 
 The petitioner has not demonstrated the 
significance of a travel award, which appears designed to subsidize the travel of a presenter to the 
conference where he will be presenting promising work that has yet to be widely disseminated in the 
field rather than to recognize past achievement. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien ir membership in associations in the field for which classiJication is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national 
or international experts in their disciplines orjelds. 
The petitioner initially submitted evidence of his membership in the American Society of 
Pharmacognosy, the International Society for Heart Research (ISHR) and the American Heart 
Association. In accordance with the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5@)(3)(ii), the 
Page 5 
director requested evidence of the membership requirements for the associations of which the petitioner 
is a member. The petitioner responded with new documentation, including evidence that the petitioner 
is also a member of the American Society of Nephrology (ASN), the Biophysical Society and the 
American Physiological Society (APS) including the Renal Section of APS. The evidence reveals that 
the petitioner joined APS after the date of filing and does not establish that the petitioner was a member 
of these other new associations as of the date the petition was filed. The director ultimately concluded 
that the petitioner's memberships could not serve to meet this criterion. On appeal, counsel asserts that 
the petitioner's memberships in APS, the American Heart Association and the ISHR serve to meet this 
criterion. While counsel asserts that the petitioner was elected to membership in the APS and reiterates 
the purposes of the remaining associations, he does not explain how any of these associations require 
outstanding achievements as judged by recognized national or international experts. We will consider 
the specific membership requirements below. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted evidence regarding 
the American Society of Pharmacognosy from www.wikipedia.org. We note that this website is open 
to editing by the general public and, thus, may not be presumed to be accurate. The petitioner also 
submitted the society's constitution as downloaded fiom its website. This evidence is more persuasive. 
The constitution provides that membership "shall be open to professional pharmacognosists, to 
graduate students, and to others with allied interests." While "fellows" must be nominated and 
appointed based on exceptional contributions, the record lacks evidence that the petitioner is a fellow of 
this society. The record also lacks evidence as to how the society defines "exceptional." 
The petitioner also submitted evidence that membership in ISHR is open to "any physician or scientist 
who has manifested a scientific interest in heart research." Working as a physician or scientist and 
professing an interest in the area to which the society is dedicated are not an outstanding achievement. 
The petitioner also submitted evidence that the American Heart Association has special categories of 
membership for their long-term and retirement age members. The petitioner did not submit evidence 
that his membership falls into one of these categories. Regardless, length of time as a member is not an 
outstanding achievement. Moreover, it would not appear that national or international experts in the 
petitioner's field would be needed to judge the length of time as a member. While the petitioner also 
submitted evidence of the membership benefits of belonging to the American Heart Association, at 
issue are the membership requirements, not the benefits. 
As stated above, the petitioner has not established that he was a member of the remaining associations 
as of the date of filing. The petitioner must establish his eligibility as of that date. See 8 C.F.R. 
85 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Regl. Comrnr. 1971). Regardless, the 
petitioner has not demonstrated that any of these associations require outstanding achievements of their 
members. 
A regular member of the Biophysical Society must support the purposes of the society, be a scientist 
who has educational research or practical publications and be sponsored by two regular members. For 
biological scientists, the Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook 15 1 (2006-2007 ed.) 
reflects that a "solid record of published research is essential in obtaining a permanent position 
involving basic research." Thus, we are not persuaded that publishing one's research is an outstanding 
achievement. In addition, the petitioner has not established that securing the sponsorship of two regular 
members of a large, membership-driven professional society is an outstanding achievement. 
Applicants for APS membership must possess an advanced degree. The membership committee also 
considers the applicant's occupation, giving emphasis to those who work in a department of physiology 
or related field, and the applicant's "contributions to physiological literature." Significantly, however, 
after discussing the factors considered by the committee, the materials state that regular members b'will 
have a doctoral degree in physiology or related area and will have published at least one paper in a peer- 
reviewed journal." Completing one's degree is not an outstanding achievement. As stated above, we 
are also not persuaded that having published a single article is an outstanding achievement. Thus, 
while APS may have a membership committee that considers the membership applications, the 
petitioner has not established that the ultimate requirements for membership include outstanding 
achievements. 
The petitioner did not submit the membership requirements of any other association. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classzj?cation is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted published 
materials about research being conducted at the institution where the petitioner works. The director 
concluded that the research discussed in these articles was not conducted by the petitioner. On appeal, 
counsel acknowledges that the articles are not about the petitioner's research but were submitted to 
show the importance of his area of research in general and the specific accomplishments of his mentors 
who support the petition. Regardless, it remains that those articles cannot serve to meet this criterion as 
they are not "about" the petitioner. Similarly, while the petitioner's work is listed in a handfbl of 
bibliographies, the listings are not published material primarily about the petitioner as required by the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. $j 204.5@)(3)(iii). 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an alliedfield of speczfcation for which classzj?cation is sought. 
The petitioner submitted evidence that he reviewed a manuscript for Chemosphere. We cannot ignore 
that scientific journals are peer reviewed and rely on many scientists to review submitted articles. 
Thus, peer review is routine in the field; not every peer reviewer enjoys sustained national or 
international acclaim. Without evidence that sets the petitioner apart from others in hs field, such as 
evidence that he has reviewed an unusually large number of articles, received independent requests 
from a substantial number of journals, or served in an editorial position for a distinguished journal, we 
cannot conclude that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signi$cance in the$eld. 
The petitioner relies on several letters to meet this criterion. According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not only original but of major significance. We 
must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, that it has some 
meaning. To be considered a contribution of major significance in the field of science, it can be 
expected that the results would have already been reproduced and confirmed by other experts and 
applied in their work. Otherwise, it is difficult to gauge the impact of the petitioner's work. 
The opinions of experts in the field, while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a 
successful claim of sustained national or international acclaim. CIS may, in its discretion, use as 
advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 
I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Cornmr. 1988). However, CIS is ultimately responsible for making the final 
determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters 
from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; CIS may evaluate the 
content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795. CIS may 
even give less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated, in accord with other information or is in 
any way questionable. Id. at 795; See also Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Cornmr. 1998) 
(citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Regl. Cornmr. 1972)). 
In evaluating the reference letters, we note that letters containing mere assertions of widespread 
acclaim and vague claims of contributions and ability are less persuasive than letters that specifically 
identify contributions and provide specific examples of how those contributions have influenced the 
field. In addition, letters from independent references who were previously aware of the petitioner 
through his reputation and who have applied his work are far more persuasive than letters from 
independent references who were not previously aware of the petitioner and are merely responding to 
a solicitation to review the petitioner's cuniculum vitae and work and provide an opinion based 
solely on this review. Ultimately, evidence in existence prior to the preparation of the petition 
carries greater weight than new materials prepared especially for submission with the petition. An 
individual with sustained national or international acclaim should be able to produce unsolicited 
materials reflecting that acclaim. 
The petitioner obtained his Ph.D. in Botany Pharrnacolo 
 and Environmental Toxicology at the 
University of Madras in 2000 under the direction off Upon graduating, the 
petitioner worked as a fellow at the Japanese National Institute of Animal Health in the laboratory of 
In 2002, the petitioner began working as a fellow at the Nation- 
Environmental Health (NIES) in Japan. There, the petitioner worked in the laboratory of 
Kobayashi. In 2003, the petitioner accepted a postdoctoral 
 the Albany Medical College in 
In 2004, the petitioner joined the laboratory of 
 the Weill Medical College of 
Cornell University as a postdoctoral research associate. 
 remained in this position as of 
the date of filing in 2005. 
asserts that the petitioner's Ph.D. research investigated "the role of various indigenous 
medicines in human health." More specifically, the petitioner "isolated two cardiac active 
phytochemicals f+om Aegle marmelos and iovascular pharmacological and 
toxicological studies in frogs, rats and dogs." otes that the petitioner obtained 
original results and received travel grants to present his work. Any research must be shown to be 
original and present some benefit if it is to receive funding and attention fiom the scientific 
community. Any Ph.D. thesis or postdoctoral research, in order to be accepted for graduation, 
publication or funding, must offer new and useful information to the pool of knowledge. It does not 
follow that every researcher who performs original research that adds to the general pool of 
as inherently made a contribution of major significance to the field as a whole. Dr. 
does not explain how the petitioner's work has impacted the treatment of heart disease or 
cardiac research in general. 
asserts that, at the National Institute of Animal Health, the petitioner continued his 
investigation of Aegle marmelos. 
 Specifically, he isolated two biologically active substances and 
examined the functions of them on the cardiovascular system using a Langendorff isolated heart in a rat 
model. Once again, asserts that the petitioner presented this work and that future 
publications will follow, but fails to explain how this work has impacted the treatment of heart disease 
or cardiac research in general. 
explains that he had contact with the petitioner whlle the petitioner was working with 
m d subsequently invited th 
 his laboratory to investigate diesel exhaust 
particles on the cardiovascular system. 
 lists the laboratory teclmques used by the 
petitioner in thi 
 es that the petitioner presented this work at international conferences. 
praises the petitioner's professionalism and the quality of his 
experiments. 
 does not identify any significant results or explain how those results have 
impacted the field of toxicology. 
The record contains no letters fiom the petitioner's colleagues at Albany Medical College. rn 
research scientist at the New  irk State ~e~artment of Health in Albany, assertsthat he had 
interacted with the petitioner to establish a collaboration between hls laboratory and the Center for 
Cardiovascular Sciences at Albany Medical 
 dy the effects of exposure to environmental 
pollutants on the cardio-pulmonary system. 
 implies he is still attem 
 te a joint 
grant proposal with the petitioner although the petitioner is no longer in Albany. 
 does not 
discuss the results of the petitioner's work in Albany or explain how it has impacted the study of 
environmental pollutants or the treatment of cardio-pulmonary conditions. 
explains that the petitioner's current work at Cornell focuses on the role of mast cells and 
their role in asthma. Specifically, expanding on previous work by, the petitioner used 
complex surgery to demonstrate that the release of rennin fiom mast cells triggers a local rennin- 
angiotensin system that leads to bronchial constriction. asserts that the petitioner is preparing 
a manuscript reporting this work and speculates that the article "will be enthusiastically received." In a 
subsequent letter, asserts that the petitioner's recent research has been accepted for 
presentation at a conference. The petitioner submitted evidence that the petitioner presented this work 
in 2006, after the petition was filed. 
In a similar letter, - a professor at the Cornell University Medical Center, asserts that 
the petitioner's work on mast cells "will be th 
rn 
nstration that angiotensin can be made in the 
airways and then act on the bronchial tissue." 
 then speculates that the petitioner's research 
"can open new doors for developing therapies in t e treatment of asthma." As stated above, the 
petitioner must demonstrate his eligibility as of the date of filing. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(l), (12); 
Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Regl. Commr. 197 1). Thus, in order to meet this criterion, 
the petitioner must have already made contributions of major significance that have garnered him 
national or international acclaim, the statutory standard in this matter. We cannot conclude that 
research that has yet to be published and, thus, widely disseminated in the field or even subject to peer- 
review, can constitute a quali fylng contribution of maj or significance. 
The record contains other letters from colleagues and former fellow students, now just postdoctoral 
associates themselves, reiterating the petitioner's credentials and providing general praise. These letters 
provide little information that is not otherwise apparent from th 
be from acquaintances with different areas of expertise, such as 
researcher at Hitachi Chemical Co. whose area of expertise includes materials physics and chemistry. 
Similarly, pursues he1 cell research at the National Yunlin University of 
Science an ec o ogy in aiwan, a ough he claims to have collaborated with the petitioner. In 
response ~nal evidence, the petitioner provided n letter fkom = 
Special Advisor to the Rector of the United Nations Universitv Office at the United 
Nations. The record s pharmacological 
expertise, if any. Regardless, erely recites the petitioner's credentials and 
concludes that the 
 that will benefit the United States. 
Director of the Residents' Ambulatory Clinic at Sinai-Grace Hospital at Wayne 
State University, asserts that he knows the petitioner "though his scientific publications and his 
contemporary research." plains that the petitioner has made "several important 
with phytochemicals, which have the potential to help us fight asthma and heart disease." 
does not identify those discoveries or explain how they have 
 the field by 
facilitating investigation of new treatments or new avenues of research. 
 peculates as to the 
usellness of the petitioner's current work with mast cells.  ina all^, praises the petitioner's 
experience with various research techniques. The petitioner provides a similar letter from 
- 
Director and Owner of Genetics Associates, Inc. That the petitioner has the necessary experience 
and skills to pursue his research does not establish that he has already made an original contribution of 
major significance. 
, a clinical researcher in heart failure at the University of Hull in the United Kingdom, 
explains that he was asked to support the petitioner's petition for permanent residence in the United 
States. He states that he "understand[s]" that the petitioner has done substantial research and. is 
associated with distinguished research teams. He concludes that retaining high quality scientists like 
will help the United States maintain its status as the world leader in scientific research. 
does not claim to have ever heard of the petitioner or his research prior to being contacted 
ce and does not claim any first hand knowledge of the impact the petitioner's research has 
had in the field. The statutory standard in this matter is national or international acclaim not simply 
competence in a field of strategic importance to the United States. 
Many of the letters reference the petitioner's publications and presentations. The petitioner lists six 
published articles on his curriculum vitae, one of whch is a poster presentation, and submitted copies 
of those articles. 
 The earliest article was published in 1999. 
 The petitioner's 2004 article in 
Phytomedicine is available as a "book" through Amazon.com and MedicalTextbook.com. While the 
petitioner also lists four manuscripts under review or in preparation, none of those manuscripts report 
the results of his recent work with 
 at the University of Comell. The petitioner also lists 
several conference presentations. Initially, the petitioner submitted evidence that one of his articles is 
included in a list of articles on pharmacology and toxicology at www.niscair.res.in. Two of the 
petitioner's articles are listed as "related publications" on aegle marmelos monoclonal antibodies at 
www.exactantigen.com. A search of the annotated bibliography of Indian medicine for the petitioner's 
name and "aegle" produces three articles by the petitioner. Finally, another research team at the 
University of Madras, where the petitioner obtained hs Ph.D., cited one of his articles. This citation by 
researchers at the University of Madras is the only true citation submitted initially. The Internet allows 
for a search of existing articles in many ways. That the petitioner is able to produce Internet searches 
that locate his articles is not evidence that other researchers have relied on his work as would be 
demonstrated by actual citations. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, counsel asserts that the petitioner "was 
cited by many other researchers found in printed as well as online journals and other internet trade 
sources." Counsel then notes the submission of "the cited reference sheet and other citations." In 
support of the response, the petitioner provided more electronic database searches that include the 
petitioner's articles in the results. Once again, the fact that the petitioner's articles are accessible in 
databases is not evidence that they are actually relied upon by other researchers. The petitioner also 
submitted a "Cited Reference Search" which lists nine articles by the petitioner or someone with the 
same last name and first initial. As noted by the director, four of the articles, including the only two 
articles to be cited more than twice, were published prior to 1999, the year the petitioner first published 
his work. On appeal, counsel asserts that "it was not possible to exclude citations fiom other authors 
with the same initial and last name" and noted that the petitioner's articles were listed with the original 
petition. Regardless, it remains that the evidence submitted does not establish that the petitioner "was 
cited by many other researchers" as claimed by counsel in response to the director's request for 
additional evidence. A rate of one or two citations for an individual article is not consistent with 
contributions that are of major significance. 
Finally, a few of the letters reference a scientific poetry composition by the petitioner. Authorship of a 
poem, even one with a scientific theme, is not a scientific contribution of major significance. 
While the petitioner's research is no doubt of value, it can be argued that any research must be 
shown to be original and present some benefit if it is to receive funding and attention fiom the 
scientific community. Any Ph.D. thesis or postdoctoral research, in order to be accepted for 
graduation, publication or funding, must offer new and useful information to the pool of knowledge. 
It does not follow that every researcher who performs original research that adds to the general pool 
of knowledge has inherently made a contribution of major significance to the field as a whole. The 
record includes numerous attestations of the potential impact of the petitioner's work. None of the 
petitioner's references, however, provide examples of how the petitioner's work is already 
influencing the field. While the evidence demonstrates that the petitioner is a capable researcher 
with potential, it falls far short of establishing that the petitioner had already made contributions of 
major significance. Thus, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The petitioner's publication record is set forth in detail above. 
 The Association of American 
Universities' Committee on Postdoctoral Education, on page 5 of its Report and Recommendations, 
March 3 1, 1998, set forth its recommended definition of a postdoctoral appointment. Among the 
factors included in thls definition are the acknowledgement that "the appointment is viewed as 
preparatory for a full-time academic andlor research career," and that "the appointee has the fieedom, 
and is expected, to publish the results of hls or her research or scholarship during the period of the 
appointment." Thus, this national organization considers publication of one's work to be "expected," 
even among researchers who have not yet begun "a full-time academic andlor research career." 
Moreover, as stated above, the Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook 151 (2006- 
2007 ed.) reflects that a "solid record of published research is essential in obtaining a permanent 
position involving basic research" for biological scientists. The handbook also provides that university 
faculty spend a significant amount of their time doing research and often publish their findings. Id. at 
224. In addition, the handbook acknowledges that faculty face "the pressure to do research and publish 
their findings." Id. at 225. This information reinforces our position that publication of scholarly 
articles is not automatically evidence of sustained acclaim; we must consider the research community's 
reaction to those articles. As discussed above, the record does not establish that any of the petitioner's 
articles have been cited more than twice. We are not persuaded that the petitioner's publication record 
is consistent with national or international acclaim. Thus, the petitioner has not established that he 
meets this criterion. Even if we did not examine the quality of the evidence submitted to meet this 
criterion, and we find that we are justified in doing so, the petitioner would still, for the reasons 
discussed above and below, fall far short of meeting any other criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
We have already considered the petitioner's alleged contributions above. At issue for this criterion are 
the position the petitioner was selected to fill and the reputation of the entity that selected him. In other 
words, the position must be of such significance that the alien's selection to fill the position, in and of 
itself, is indicative of or consistent with national or international acclaim. While we do not question the 
reputation of the institutions where the petitioner has been employed, we are not persuaded that training 
fellowships and postdoctoral appointments are "leading or critical" roles for the institutions as a whole. 
Finally, the conclusion we reach by considering the evidence to meet each criterion separately is 
consistent with a review of the evidence in the aggregate. Even in the aggregate, the evidence does not 
distinguish the petitioner as one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor. The petitioner, a postdoctoral research associate, relies on his training fellowship, 
professional membershps, publications, minimal citation record, review of a single manuscript for a 
journal and the praise of his peers. While thls may disti 
we will not narrow his field to others with his level of 
editorial board of the American Journal of Physiology. 
featured in Science Briefs, Renal and Urology News an 
the Scientific Advisory Committee of the International Institute o 
an executive committee member for the Association of 
Director of the Residents' Ambulatory Clinic at Sinai-Grace Hospital. 
Director of the Environmental Health Sciences Division at Tsukuba University. Thus, it appears that 
the highest level of the petitioner's field is far above the level he has attained. 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the alien has acheved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage 
who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself as a 
pharmacology 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 petitioner shows promise as a postdoctoral researcher, but is not persuasive that the 
petitioner's achevernents set him significantly above almost all others in his field. Therefore, the 
petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition 
may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U. S.C. $ 136 1. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.