dismissed EB-1A Case: Biochemist

~dentifying data deleted to 
prevent dearly unwarranted 
invasis~l of pers~nal privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Um. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
SRC 04 216 51877 
IN RE: 
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. 5 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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. 
Administrative Appeals Office 
i 
i, 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office 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. 5 1153(b)(l)(A). The 
director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim 
necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a statement and additional evidence. For the reasons discussed 
below, the petitioner has not overcome all of the director's concerns. 
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 to the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
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. 5 204.5(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. tj 204.5(h)(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 biochemist. 
According to his curriculum vitae, the petitioner was a postdoctoral fellow at the time of filing. In 
general, postdoctoral appointments are entry-level positions for recent Ph.D. graduates. While recent 
graduates are not precluded for establishing eligibility, we will not narrow the petitioner's field to those 
Page 3 
just graduating. The petitioner must compare with the most experienced and renowned members of the 
field. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(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). Barring 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 qualifL 
as an alien of extraordinary ability. The petitioner has submitted evidence that, he claims, meets the 
following criteria. ' 
Documentation of the alien S receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the Jield of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted evidence that he obtained a "Postdoctoral Traineeship Award" research grant 
from the Department of Defense Breast Cancer Research Program in September 2001. According to 
the materials submitted, the awards are designed to provide opportunities for "recent doctoral or 
medical degree graduates with limited postdoctoral experience to gain additional experience in breast 
cancer research." The petitioner also received a "Servier Young Investigators' Award in December 
1999, while the petitioner was still a Ph.D. student. The President and Secretary of the Indian 
Pharmacological Society signed the award certificate. It appears that the Institut de Recherches 
Internationales Servier promotes several young investigator awards ultimately issued by other scientific 
societies and foundations. The petitioner submits materials regarding the "Servier Award issued by 
the Endocrine Society of Australia (ESA), which is limited to members of that society. On his 
curriculum vitae, the petitioner indicates that the award recognized his poster presentation at a 
conference in New Delhi. The petitioner does not claim or document any Australian memberships. 
Thus the materials fiom the ESA are not relevant to the significance of the petitioner's award. 
The director concluded that the petitioner had not demonstrated that the Servier Young Investigator 
Award was nationally recognized. On appeal, the petitioner submits materials about Servier awards 
issued by the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) and "ISRA." Once again, the petitioner did 
not receive a Servier award fiom IOF or ISRA, which appears to be a Canadian society. As such, these 
materials are mostly irrelevant, although the ISRA materials reveal that Servier awards can include a 
graduate student category. The petitioner also asserts that the director erred in failing to consider his 
research grant. 
Awards limited to graduate students, which the petitioner was when he won the Servier Young 
Investigator Award, or recent graduates do not compare the petitioner with the most experienced and 
renowned members of the field. As stated above, we will not narrow the petitioner's field to students 
or recent graduates. As the most experienced and renowned members of the field do not aspire to win 
young investigator awards or trainee research grants, they cannot constitute nationally recognized 
1 
The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
awards. Moreover, research grants simply fund a scientist's work. Every successful scientist engaged 
in research, of which there are hundreds of thousands, receives funding from somewhere. Obviously 
the past achievements of the principal investigator are a factor in grant proposals. The funding 
institution has to be assured that the investigator is capable of performing the proposed research. 
Nevertheless, a research grant is principally designed to fund future research, and not to honor or 
recognize past achievement. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classification is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national 
or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
Initially, the petitioner submitted evidence of his associate membership in the American Society of 
Gene Therapy (ASGT) and his active membership in the American Association for Cancer Research 
(AACR). Associate membership in ASGT is limited to postdoctoral fellows and graduate students. 
The materials from AACR, which boasted 20,000 members at the time of filing, provide: 
Active Membership in AACR is open to investigators worldwide. Individuals who 
have conducted two years of research resulting in peer-reviewed publications relevant to 
cancer and cancer-related biomedical science, or who have made substantial 
contributions to cancer research in an administrative or educational capacity are eligible. 
Evidence of patents relevant to cancer research may be submitted as qualifications for 
membership in lieu of peer-reviewed publications. 
Finally, applications for membership in AACR must include the signatures of two nominating 
members. The director concluded that these materials did not establish that either ASGT or AACR 
requires outstanding achievements of its members. 
On appeal, the petitioner concedes that his membership in ASGT is not qualifling. The petitioner, 
however, asserts that only 5,009 of the 20,000 members in AACR are active and that only 10 of the 
active members are postdoctoral fellows. The petitioner then compares this membership with the 
National Academy of Sciences, which has 2,000 active members according to the petitioner. 
First, as stated above, we will not narrow the petitioner's field to postdoctoral fellows. The petitioner 
must compare with the most experienced and renowned members of the field. Thus, the fact that only a 
few postdoctoral fellows are active members of AACR is irrelevant. Second, the petitioner 
misrepresents the information provided to him by AACR. The e-mail submitted indicates that there are 
5,009 professors who are active members of AACR. This information in no way implies that there are 
only 5,009 active members total. Universities, private research firms and pharmaceutical companies 
around the world employ hundreds of thousands of research scientists who are not professors, some of 
whom could account for another large segment of active members. 
Page 5 
Finally, while a large membership suggests that an association or society is not exclusive, it does not 
follow that every association or society with a small membership requires outstanding achievements of 
its members. At issue are the actual requirements for membership, not the number of members. We 
cannot conclude that two years of experience, publication in peer-reviewed journals and the signatures 
of two members are outstanding achievements. The petitioner submits no evidence that eligibility for 
the National Academy of Sciences requires nothing more than two years of experience and peer- 
reviewed  article^.^ Significantly, AACR has emeritus members, suggesting a more exclusive level of 
membership the petitioner has not yet attained. 
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 alIiedJield of specijication for which classijication is sought. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, prior counsel asserted that the petitioner, 
"while a postdoctoral fellow at M.D.' Anderson Cancer Center, had been given the responsibility of 
reviewing, mentoring and 
 before their work is published. Prior counsel 
references a letter from Dr. 
 petitioner's supervisor at the University of 
Texas M.D. Anderson 
 serts that the petitioner has supervised a part- 
time research sc 
 tored a graduate student and reviewed manuscripts and grant proposals 
generated in Dr. laboratory. 
The director concluded that the above responsibilities constitute routine job duties that do not set the 
petitioner apart from others in the field. On appeal, the petitioner submits a new letter from Dr. 
asserts that the petitioner "officially" judges the work of others by authoring t eir 
evaluations an a vising them on their scientific work. 
h 
The issue is not whether the petitioner's responsibilities can be accurately defined as "judging." Every 
professor "judges" the work of his students and every first-line supervisor "judges" the work of his 
subordinates, but not every professor or first-line supervisor enjoys national or international acclaim. In 
order for the statutory standard of national or international acclaim to have any meaning, the evidence 
submitted to meet a given criterion must be indicative of or at least consistent with national or 
international acclaim. The petitioner's responsibilities in Dr. aboratory suggest his 
confidence in the petitioner, but they do not compare with serving as an external dissertation advisor at 
institutions with which the petitioner is not affiliated or serving on the editorial board of a peer- 
reviewed journal. 
2 
 According to the Academy's website, www.nasonline.org, election to membership in the National Academy 
of Sciences is recognizes those who have made distinguished and continuing achievements in original 
research. Significantly, nominations must come from academy members or a voluntary nominating group 
and go through preliminary, informal and formal balloting. The academy announces those elected, limited to 
72 annually, in a press release. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientzjc, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major sign$cance in the$eld. 
The petitioner submits several reference letters from his advisor at the University of Hyderabad and 
his colleagues in Texas. The director concluded that the letters established the petitioner as an 
accomplished "young researcher" but did not elevate him to the top of his field. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the authors of the reference letters praise his work and it is 
ical for reference letters to discuss a researcher's future promise. After the date of filing, Dr. = 
ah wrote a memorandum to the Chair of the Molecular and Cellular Oncology Department 
asserting that the petitioner is an excellent postdoctoral fellow and "is comparable to some of the 
best junior researchers I have known either here or at other institutions." As discussed above, 
however, we will not narrow the petitioner's field to postdoctoral fellows or junior researchers. 
While he is not precluded from eligibility as a postdoctoral fellow, he must provide evidence 
demonstrating that his accomplishments are comparable to the most experienced and renowned 
members of his field. We will evaluate the letters addressing the petitioner's accomplishments 
below. 
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. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (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 (Comm. 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 795-796. 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 Sofjci, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of 
California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comrn. 1972)). 
In evaluating the reference letters, we note that letters containing mere assertions of widespread 
acclaim and vague claims of contributions are less persuasive than letters that specifically identify 
contributions and provide specific examples of how those contributions have influenced the field. 
In addition, letters fiom 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 curriculum 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. 
~r. the petitioner's Ph.D. advisor at the University of Hyderabad, discusses the 
petitioner's work on the design and development of anticancer organometallic complexes. The 
petitioner focused on circumventing past problems with side effects from anticancer metal 
compounds, targeting the cellular enzyme topoisomerase 11. The petitioner used structure based 
design strategies to synthesize ruthenium and iron to poison topoisomerase 11, reporting for the first 
time on organometallic compounds that poison this enzyme. ~r.asserts that several 
laboratories are "actively pursuing similar research based on his findings." 
Dr. 
 discusses the petitioner's work on pharmacological regulation of a targeted gene, the 
HER-2 oncogene, often ove~expressed in breast -cancer and indicative of poor patient prognosis. 
- - 
While working with hairpin polyamides, the petitioner was inspired to pursue chimeric transcription 
factors, demonstrated to be highly efficient transcriptional repressors. Specifically, the petitioner 
found that KRAB-AP~~~~~ proteins inhibit HER-2 expression and result in programmed cell death 
of cancer cells. According to Dr., another professor at the M.D. Anderson Cancer 
Center, the chimeric transcription factors constructed by the petitioner could also be used for 
"genomic scale discovery of target genes involved in cancer" in addition to their therapeutic value. 
while the petitioner was still preparing the manuscript reporting these results as of the date of filing, 
according to another reference at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Dr. the 
petitioner had presented this work at the U.S. Department of Defense Breast Cancer Program 
meeting in 2002. 
While Dr., another professor at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, asserts that the 
petitioner's work "should have a direct and significant impact on the improvement of the current 
- 
cancer treatment," he does not indi 
 petitioner's work has already done so or that it is 
being actively pursued beyond Dr. 
 laboratory. Dr. % ultimate1 characterizes the 
petitioner as a "promising young cancer researcher." Similarly, Dr. initially 
describes the petitioner's work as "revolutionary in the sense that it provided a new way of dealing 
with oncogenes" but ultimately concludes that it is merely "promising" and heading "in the right 
direction of developing a therapeutic reagent for cancer." 
Dr. 
 formerly a visiting professor at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, asserts 
that t e petitioner is 
 at the fo 
 breakthrough research in the field of transcriptional 
regulation for gene therapy." Dr. 
 predicts that the petitioner's upcoming manuscript will 
"establish his research idea as a practical solution, which could then be pursued for clinical use." Dr. 
', an assistant professor at the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, asserts that the 
petltloner'srk is in the national interest, an issue not relevant to the classification sought. Dr. = 
asserts that the petitioner's work has led to other projects in Dr. h laboratory. Dr. = 
an assistant professor at the University of Texas at Austin, asserts t at e met the petitioner at a 
course and concludes that the petitioner "is well poised to use his training to make a strong impact in 
breast cancer research." 
The above letters are all from the petitioner's collaborators and immediate colleagues in India and 
Texas. While such letters are important in providing details about the petitioner's role in various 
projects, they cannot by themselves establish the petitioner's national or international acclaim. The 
record lacks letters from independent researchers who have been influenced by the petitioner's work or 
pharmaceutical companies interested in pursuing clinical trials based on the petitioner's work. 
The petitioner's field, like most science, is research-driven, and there would be little point in 
publishing research that did not add to the general pool of knowledge in the field. 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. See Walters v. Metro. Educ. Enters., 519 U.S. 202, 209 (1997); 
Bailey v. US., 5 16 U.S. 137, 145 (1 995). 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 petitioner initially submitted evidence that 20 other articles have cited the petitioner's five articles, 
although the data was not broken down as to the number of citations for each of the petitioner's articles. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits evidence that four of his articles have been cited, with the most 
citations for any one article being 22. Of those four articles, only three had been cited as of the date of 
filing, the date as of which the petitioner must demonstrate his eligibility. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(12); 
Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg. Cornm. 1971). Independent research teams had cited 
three of the petitioner's articles as of the date of filing, thirteen times, two times and one time 
respectively. It can be expected that a contribution of major significance in breast cancer research 
would be more widely and frequently cited. 
In light of the above, 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 submitted evidence that he has authored six published articles. The Association of 
American Universities' Committee on Postdoctoral Education, on page 5 of its Report and 
Recommendations, March 31, 1998, set forth its recommended definition of a postdoctoral 
appointment. Among the factors included in this definition are the acknowledgement that "the 
appointment is viewed as preparatory for a full-time academic and/or research career," and that "the 
appointee has the freedom, and is expected, to publish the results of his 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." This report reinforces CIS'S 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 petitioner work has been and continues to be moderately cited. While the 
petitioner's citation record is not indicative of a contribution of major significance, we are persuaded 
that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner claims to have played a leading or critical role for the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center. 
We have already considered the petitioner's claimed contributions to the field while working there. At 
issue for this criterion are the role the petitioner was hired to fill and the reputation of the employer. As 
of the date of filing, the petitioner was working as a postdoctoral fellow. After the date of filing, the 
petitioner was promoted to Instructor. As discussed above, the petitioner must establish his eligibility 
as of the date of filing. See 8 C.F.R. tj 103.2(b)(12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg. 
Cornm. 1971). While the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center may have a distinguished reputation, we 
cannot conclude that every postdoctoral researcher or instructor who plays an important role in a 
distinguished institution's laboratory plays a leading or critical role for the institution as a whole. 
Therefore, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the alien has achieved 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 
biochemist 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 talent as a postdoctoral fellow, but is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements 
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. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.