dismissed EB-1A Case: Biochemistry

U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices
AdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO)
20 MassachusettsAve..N.w., MS 2090
washineton.DC 20529-2090
U.S.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
DATE: [)E J 'd 2012 Office: NEBRASKASERVICECENTER FILE:
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionfor Alien WorkerasanAlien of ExtraordinaryAbility Pursuantto
Section203(b)(1)(A)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A)
ONBEHALFOFPETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind the decisionof the AdministrativeAppealsOffice in your case. All of the
documentsrelatedtothismatterhavebeenreturnedto theofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcase.Please
beadvisedthatanyfurtherinquiry thatyoumighthaveconcerningyour casemustbemadeto thatoffice.
If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional
information that you wish to have considered,you may file a motion to reconsideror a motion to reopen
in accordancewith theinstructionsonFormI-290B,Noticeof AppealorMotion,witha feeof $630.The
specificrequirementsfor filing sucha motioncanbefoundat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5.Do not file anymotion
directly with the AAO. Pleasebeawarethat8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresanymotionto be filed
within 30daysof thedecisionthatthemotionseekstoreconsiderorreopen.
Thankyou,
onRosenberg
ActingChief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscus.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION:The employment-basedimmigrant visa petition was deniedby the Director,
NebraskaServiceCenter,andis nowbeforetheAdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO) on appeal.
Theappealwill bedismissed.
The petitioner seeksclassificationas an employment-basedimmigrant pursuantto section
203(b)(1)(A)of the ImmigrationandNationalityAct (theAct), 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A),asan
alienof extraordinaryability in the sciences.Thedirectordeterminedthatthepetitionerhadnot
establishedthe requisiteextraordinaryability andfailedto submitextensivedocumentationof his
sustainednationalor internationalacclaim.
Congressseta very high benchmarkfor aliensof extraordinaryability by requiringthroughthe
statutethatthepetitionerdemonstratethealien's"sustainednationalor internationalacclaim"and
present"extensivedocumentation"of thealien'sachievements.Seesection203(b)(1)(A)(i)of the
Act and8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3).Theimplementingregulationat 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)statesthat
analiencanestablishsustainednationalor internationalacclaimthroughevidenceof a one-time
achievementof amajor,internationallyrecognizedaward.Absentthereceiptof suchanaward,the
regulationoutlinestencategoriesof specificobjectiveevidence.8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(i)through
(x). The petitionermust submitqualifyingevidenceunderat leastthreeof the ten regulatory
categoriesof evidenceto establishthebasiceligibilityrequirements.
On appeal,counselassertsthat the petitionermeetsthe regulatorycategoriesof evidenceat
8 C.F.R.§§204.5(h)(3)(i),(iii), (v), (vi), and(viii). Forthereasonsdiscussedbelow,theAAO
will upholdthedirector'sdecision.
L LAW
Section203(b)of theAct states,in pertinentpart,that:
(1) Priorityworkers.-- Visasshallfirstbemadeavailable. . . to qualifiedimmigrants
whoarealiensdescribedin anyof thefollowingsubparagraphs(A) through(C):
(A) Alienswith extraordinaryability.-- An alienis describedin this
subparagraphif --
(i) the alien hasextraordinaryability in the sciences,
arts,education,business,or athleticswhich hasbeen
demonstratedby sustainednational or international
acclaimandwhoseachievementshavebeenrecognized
inthefieldthroughextensivedocumentation,
(ii) thealienseeksto entertheUnitedStatesto continue
workintheareaof extraordinaryability,and
(iii) the alien's entry into the United Stateswill
substantiallybenefitprospectivelytheUnitedStates.
Page3
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services(USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization
Service(INS) have consistentlyrecognizedthat Congressintendedto set a very high standardfor
individualsseekingimmigrantvisasasaliensof extraordinaryability. SeeH.R.723101"Cong.,2d
Sess.59(1990);56Fed.Reg.60897,60898-99(Nov.29, 1991).Theterm"extraordinaryability"
refersonlyto thoseindividualsin thatsmallpercentagewhohaverisento theverytopof thefieldof
endeavor.Id.; 8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(2).
Theregulationat8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)requiresthatthepetitionerdemonstratethealien'ssustained
acclaimandtherecognitionof hisor herachievementsin thefield. Suchacclaimmustbeestablished
eitherthroughevidenceof aone-timeachievement(thatis, a major,internationalrecognizedaward)
or throughthesubmissionof qualifyingevidenceunderatleastthreeof thetencategoriesof evidence
listedat8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x).
In 2010,the U.S. Courtof Appealsfor the Ninth Circuit(Ninth Circuit)reviewedthe denialof a
petitionfiled underthis classification.Kazarianv. USCIS,596F.3d1115(9thCir. 2010).Although
the courtupheldthe AAO's decisionto denythe petition,the courttook issuewith the AAO's
evaluationof evidencesubmittedto meetagivenevidentiarycriterion.' Withrespecttothecriteriaat
8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(iv)and(vi), thecourtconcludedthatwhileUSCISmayhaveraisedlegitimate
concernsaboutthesignificanceof theevidencesubmittedto meetthosetwo criteria,thoseconcerns
shouldhavebeenraisedin asubsequent"final meritsdetermination."Id. at 1121-22.
ThecourtstatedthattheAAO's evaluationrestedon animproperunderstandingof theregulations.
Insteadof parsingthesignificanceof evidenceaspartof theinitial inquiry,thecourtstatedthat"the
properprocedureis to countthe typesof evidenceprovided(which the AAO did)," and if the
petitionerfailedto submitsufficientevidence,"theproperconclusionisthattheapplicanthasfailedto
satisfythe regulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence(astheAAO concluded)."Id. at 1122
(citingto 8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)).
Thus,Kazariansetsforthatwo-partapproachwheretheevidenceis first countedandthenconsidered
in thecontextof a final meritsdetermination.In this matter,theAAO will reviewtheevidenceunder
theplain languagerequirementsof eachcriterionclaimed. As thepetitionerdid not submitqualifying
evidenceunderat leastthreecriteria,the properconclusionis that thepetitionerhasfailed to satisfy
theregulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence.Id.
II. ANALYSIS
A. EvidentiaryCriteria
This petition, filed on March 28, 2011, seeksto classify the petitioner as an alien with
extraordinaryability as a researchscientist. In a statementsubmittedwith the petition, the
petitionerasserts:"I believethat I qualify for the classificationasan alienof extraordinary
ability due to my extensiveexpertisein biochemistry,in particular,molecularbiology and
Specifically,thecourtstatedthattheAAO hadunilaterallyimposednovelsubstantiveor evidentiaryrequirements
beyondthosesetforthin theregulationsat8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(iv)and8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(vi).
Page4
vascularbiology." At thetimeof filing thepetition,thepetitionerwasworkingasapostdoctoral
researchassociatein the Departmentof Pharmacologyat the University of Illinois at Chicago
(UIC). The petitionerhassubmitteddocumentationpertainingto the following categoriesof
evidenceunder8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3).2
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally
recognizedprizes or awardsfor excellencein thefield of endeavor.
Thepetitionerinitially submittedthefollowing:
1. A certificatestating: "THE AMERICANSOCIETYFORBIOCHEMISTRYAND
MOLECULAR BIOLOGY [ASBMB] hereby awards this certificate to [the
petitioner]in recognitionof yourparticipationin theASBMB Graduate/Postdoctoral
TravelAward Programin Anaheim,CA April 23-24,2010. Your participationhas
helpedto improvethe communicationof biochemistryandmolecularbiologyamong
young scientists from around the world and your involvement is gratefully
acknowledgedby yourcolleaguesin thescientificcommunity." [Emphasisadded.];
2. A certificatestating: "THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR BIOCHEMISTRYAND
MOLECULAR BIOLOGY hereby awardsthis certificate to [the petitioner] in
recognitionof your participation in the ASBMB Graduate/PostdoctoralTravel
AwardProgramin SanDiego,CA April 4-5,2008. Your participationhashelpedto
improvethe communicationof biochemistryand molecularbiology amongyoung
scientistsfrom aroundtheworld andyourinvolvementis gratefullyacknowledgedby
yourcolleaguesin thescientificcommunity." [Emphasisadded.];
3. A "Certificatefor TravelFellowship"stating: "This is to certify that Dr/Mr/Ms [the
petitioner)wasrecipientof theCCLRU[CorneaandtheContactLensResearchUnit]
TRAVEL GRANT for attendingthe 14thAnnualMeetingof theIndianEyeResearch
Group."(July30and31,2005);and
4. A fill-in-the-blankcertificateon which thepetitioner'snameandthe dateof August
22, 2004were hand-writtenstatingthat the petitionerwas "Awardedthe AMJAD
RAHI BESTSCIENTIFICPAPERAWARD" atthe"13thAnnualmeetingOf Indian
EyeResearchGroup."
With regardto items1- 3,theAAO notesthatcompetitionfor thepetitioner'stravelawardswas
limited to graduatestudentsandpostdoctoralresearchers.Experiencedresearchscientistswho
have long since completedtheir graduatestudiesand postdoctoraltraining do not seek or
competefor suchtravelawards.Further,regardingitems1- 4, despitethedirector'srequestfor
evidence,thepetitionerfailedto submitanysupportingdocumentaryevidenceshowingthathis
awardsare nationally or internationallyrecognizedawardsfor excellencein the field of
endeavor.Thepetitionerdidnotsubmitevidenceof thenationalor internationalrecognitionof his
particularawards,suchasnationalor widespreadlocalcoverageof his awardsin professionalor
generalmedia. The plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R. §204.5(h)(3)(i)specifically
2On appeal,thepetitionerdoesnot claim to meetany of the regulatorycategoriesof evidencenot discussedin this
decision.
Page5
requiresthat the petitioner'sawardsbe nationallyor internationallyrecognizedin the field of
endeavorandit is his burdento establisheveryelementof this criterion. In this instance,thereis no
documentaryevidencedemonstratingthat items1 - 4 arerecognizedbeyondthe contextof the
scientificmeetingswherethey werepresentedandthereforecommensuratewith nationallyor
internationallyrecognizedprizesor awardsfor excellencein thefield.
In responseto thedirector'srequestfor evidence,thepetitionersubmitteda July 11,2011letter
addressedto him from the ResearchAdministration, Midwest Affiliate (MWA) Research
Programs,AmericanHeartAssociation,stating:
We are pleasedto inform you that the ResearchCommitteeof the AmericanHeart
Association(AHA) has approvedactivation of a MWA Spring 2011 Postdoctoral
Fellowshipfor the periodandin the amountindicatedbelow. This awardis contingent
upon satisfactorydemonstrationthat alternativefunds have not been, nor will be,
awardedto thisproject. AHA policiesdo not permitmutualfundingor supplementation
of aproject,evenwhenotheragencieshavereducedbudgets.
Title of Project: Calcium Signaling, p38 Mitogen Activated Protein Kinase, and
Regulationof LungMicrovascularPermeability
The awardbegins7/1/2011,and hasbeenapprovedat the level of funding indicated
below:
Period1StartDate:7/1/2011,EndDate:6/30/2012,Total:$50048
Period2 StartDate:7/1/2012,EndDate:6/30/2013,Total:$51992
The award has been approvedfor this duration; however,eachyear of funding is
contingentuponadequateprogress,andis subjectto approvalby the Affiliate Boardof
Directorsandavailabilityof funds.
The petitioner received the preceding American Heart Association MWA postdoctoral
fellowship subsequentto the petition's March 28, 2011 filing date. Eligibility must be
establishedat thetime of filing. Therefore,the AAO will not considerthis fellowshipfunding
startingin July2011asevidenceto establishthepetitioner'seligibility. 8 C.F.R.§§ 103.2(b)(1),
(12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971).A petition cannotbe
approvedata futuredateafterthepetitionerbecomeseligibleunderanewsetof facts.Matterof
Izummi,22 I&N Dec.169,175(Comm'r 1998). Thatdecisionfurtherprovides,citingMatterof
Bardouille, 18 I&N Dec. 114(BIA 1981),that USCIS cannot"considerfactsthat comeinto
being only subsequentto the filing of a petition." Id. at 176. Regardless,accordingto the
documentationsubmittedby thepetitioner,his AmericanHeartAssociationMWA Postdoctoral
Fellowshipreflectsregionalrecognitionin theMidwesternUnitedStatesratherthana nationally
or internationallyrecognizedprize or awardfor excellencein the field of endeavor. Further,
with regardto the MWA postdoctoralfellowshipfor which thepetitionerappliedandreceived
researchprojectfunding,theAAO notesthatresearchgrantssimplyfunda scientist'swork. Every
successfulscientistengagedin research,of whichtherearehundredsof thousands,receivesfunding
Page6
from somewhere.For instance,the petitionersubmittedan AmericanHeartAssociationlist of
"PostdoctoralFellowship Awardees" reflecting that five hundred researchersreceived similar
funding. Obviouslythepastachievementsof thefellowshiprecipientarea factorin researchgrant
proposals.Thefundinginstitutionhasto beassuredthattheinvestigatoris capableof performing
the proposedresearch. Nevertheless,the petitioner'sAmerican Heart Association MWA
PostdoctoralFellowshipgrantis principallydesignedto fundfutureresearch,andnotto honoror
recognizehispastexcellencein thefieldofendeavor.
In light of theabove,thepetitionerhasnot establishedthathemeetsthisregulatorycriterion.
Publishedmaterial about the alien in professionalor major tradepublications or
othermajormedia,relating to thealien'swork in thefield for whichclassificationis
sought. Suchevidenceshall includethe title, date,andauthor of the material,and
anynecessarytranslation
In general,in orderfor publishedmaterialto meetthiscriterion,it mustbeaboutthepetitionerand,
asstatedin the regulations,be printedin professionalor majortradepublicationsor othermajor
media.To qualifyasmajormedia,thepublicationshouldhavesignificantnationalor international
distribution. Somenewspapers,suchastheNewYorkTimes,nominallyservea particularlocality
but wouldqualify asmajormediabecauseof significantnationaldistribution,unlike smalllocal
communitypapers.3
Thepetitionerinitially submittedcopiesof researcharticlesthatciteto hiswork. Articleswhich
citethepetitioner'sworkareprimarilyabouttheauthors'ownworkor recenttrendsinthefield,and
arenot aboutthepetitioneror evenhis work. Theplain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R.
§204.5(h)(3)(iii)requiresthatthe publishedmaterialbe"aboutthe alien." Seealso,e.g, Accord
Negro-Plumpev. Okin,2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJat *l,*7 (D. Nev. Sept.8, 2008)(upholdinga
findingthatarticlesabouta showarenot aboutthe actor). It cannotbecrediblyassertedthatthe
submittedresearcharticlesare"about"thepetitioner. Thesubmittedarticlesdo not discussthe
petitioner'sstandingin the field or any other informationso as to be consideredpublished
materialabouthim asrequiredby this regulatorycriterion. Moreover,theAAO notesthat the
submittedarticlessimilarly referencednumerousother authors. The materialciting to the
petitioner'sworkismorerelevantto thecategoryof evidenceat 8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(v)andwill
beaddressedthere.
In responseto thedirector'srequestfor evidence,thepetitionersubmittedanAugust2010report
in Life ExtensionMagazineentitled"Combatingthe 'Diabesity'Epidemic"thatdoesnot mention
the petitionerand is not abouthim. Instead,the "References"sectionof the report lists a
researcharticlebythepetitionerandfourof hiscoauthorsasnumber26of 105references.
3 Evenwith nationally-circulatednewspapers,considerationmustbegiven to theplacementof the article, For
example,an article that appearsin the WashingtonPost,but in a sectionthat is distributedonly in Fairfax County,
Virginia, for instance,cannotserveto spreadanindividual'sreputationoutsideof thatcounty.
Page7
The petitioner also submitteda March 2009 "Editorial Focus" article in American Journal of
Physiology - Cell Physiology entitled "Dissecting the functions of protein-protein interactions:
caveolinas a promiscuouspartner." In that sameMarch 2009 issue,AmericanJournal of
Physiology- Cell Physiologypublishedan articlecoauthoredby the petitionerandfive others
entitled"Caveolin-1scaffolddomaininteractswith TRPCI and IP3R3to regulateCa" store
release-inducedCa" entry in endothelialcells." The petitioner'sarticleis discussedin three
paragraphsof the two-pageEditorial Focusarticle. The Editorial Focusarticle also cites to
seventeenadditionalarticlesauthoredby otherresearchers.Aspreviouslydiscussed,theregulation
at8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(iii)requiresthatthepublishedmaterialbe"aboutthealien"relatingto his
workratherthansimplyaboutthepetitioner'swork. Compare8 C.F.R.§204.5(i)(3)(i)(C)relating
to outstandingresearchersor professorspursuantto section203(b)(1)(B)of the Act. It cannotbe
crediblyassertedthat the EditorialFocusarticleis "about"the petitioner. Further,the Editorial
Focusarticleis moreakinto a promotionof the petitioner'sarticleby the publisherratherthan
independentjournalisticcoverageaboutthepetitioner.
Thepetitionersubmitteda September4, 2006newsreleasefromNewsRx,but the authorof the
material was not identified as required by the plain languagethe regulationat 8 C.F.R.
§204.5(h)(3)(iii). Further,the informationsubmittedby the petitionerdoesnot explainhow
NewsRxselectsits topicsfor coverage.TheNewsRxarticleappearsto be a pressreleaserather
thanindependentjournalisticcoverage.Moreover,theplainlanguageof theregulationat8C.F.R.
§204.5(h)(3)(iii)requiresthatthepublishedmaterialbe "aboutthe alien." Compare8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(i)(3)(i)(C)(requiringevidenceof publishedmaterialaboutthealien'swork). Thenews
releasepostedat NewsRx.comis not "about" the petitioner. Instead,the newsreleaseis a
summaryof multipleauthors'recentresearcharticles.
In light of theabove,thepetitionerhasnot establishedthathemeetsthisregulatorycriterion.
Evidenceof thealien'sparticipation, eitherindividuallyor on apanel, asajudge of
the wrk of others in the same or an allied field of specificationfor which
classificationis sought.
The AAO withdrawsthe director'sfinding that the petitioner'sevidencemeetsthis regulatory
criterion.Thepetitionerdidnotinitiallyclaimeligibility forthisregulatorycriterion.In responseto
the director'srequestfor evidence,the petitionersubmitteda letter from
ProgramCoordinator,ChicagoBiomedicalConsortium,UIC,stating:"I certifythat[thepetitioner]
servedasa Judgeat theUniversityof Illinois at Chicago(UIC) StudentResearchForumon April
19,2011." The petitioneralsosubmittedtwo August20, 2011e-mailsfrom
Guest-Editor,ExperimentalDiabetesResearch,requestingthat the petitioner
review manuscriptsentitled "The Role of Glucosamine-InducedER Stress in Diabetic
Atherogenesis"and"Modulationof apoptosispathwaysby oxidativestressandautophagyin B
cells"for thejoumal. Thepetitioner'sresponsealsoincludedanOctober28,2011letterfrom5
anda November1,2011letterfromtheEditorialOfficeof HindawiPublishing
Corporationconfirmingthat the petitionercompletedthe precedingmanuscriptreviews. The
petitioner'sparticipationasajudgeattheUIC StudentResearchForumon April 19,2011andthe
August 20, 2011 e-mail requeststhat he review two manuscriptsfor ExperimentalDiabetes
Page8
Researchpost-datetheMarch28,2011filing of thepetition. As previouslydiscussed,eligibility
must be establishedat the time of filing the petition. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1),(12); Matter of
Katigbak,14I&N Dec.at49. Accordingly,theAAO will not considertheprecedingevidencein
this proceeding.
In light of theabove,thepetitionerhasnot establishedthathemeetsthisregulatorycriterion.
Evidenceof thealien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-
relatedcontributionsof major significancein thefield.
In the director'sdecision,hedeterminedthatthe petitionerfailedto establisheligibility for this
regulatorycriterion. Theplain languageof theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(v)requires
"[e]videnceof the alien's original scientific, scholarly,artistic, athletic, or business-related
contributionsof majorsigmficancein thefield." [Emphasisadded.]Here,theevidencemustbe
reviewed to see whether it rises to the level of original scientific or scholarly-related
contributions"of major significancein the field." The phrase"major significance"is not
superfluousand,thus,it hassomemeaning.Silvermanv. EastrichMultiple InvestorFund,L.P.,
51F. 3d28,31(3dCir. 1995)quotedin APWUv. Potter,343F.3d619,626(2"dCir.Sep15,
2003).
The petitioner submittedvarious letters of support discussinghis work.
Tiruppathi,AssociateProfessor,Departmentof Pharmacology,UIC, states:
[The petitioner] has published the results of his work in a major peer reviewed
professionaljournal, AmericanJournal of Physiology-CellPhysiology.His published
findings were acknowledgedby an Editorial review in the sameissueof American
Journal of Physiology-CellPhysiology.. . . His findings werealsopresentedat the "23'd
Annual ExperimentalBiology Conference- American Society for Biochemistryand
MolecularBiology" in SanDiego,CA, 2008.
* * *
After an importantdiscoverymadeby [the petitioner] in the field of store-operated
calciumchannelsin vascularpathogenesis,his interestalsoextendedto studyingtherole
of TRPC channel mediated calcium entry in activating cell survival factors through
transcription factor inducedmechanisms. In the courseof this research,[the petitioner]
has discoveredthat calcium entry via TRPC channelsplays a critical role in the
mechanismof cell survival signalingthroughan antiapoptoticproteinA20 (TNFAIP3)
expressionin lung vascularendothelialcells. . . . This discoverywaspresentedat the
"23'dAnnualExperimentalBiology Conference-AmericanSocietyfor Biochemistryand
MolecularBiology" in SanDiego, CA, andwasalsopublishedin a major international
scientificjournal,AmericanJournalof Physiology-CellPhysiology.
Thepetitioner'sinitial evidencealsoincludedlettersof supportfrom
and both Professorsof Pharmacologyat UIC, repeatingthe assertionsof
Significantly,theprecedingthreereferences'letterseithercontainidenticallanguage
Page9
or virtually the same languagewhen describing the petitioner's researchactivities and
accomplishments,suggestingthe languagein at leasttwo of the three letters is not the authors'
own. Cf Surinder Singh v. Board of Immigration Appeals,438 F.3d 145, 148(2d Cir. 2006)
(upholdingan immigrationjudge's adversecredibility determinationin asylumproceedings
basedin part on the similarity of someof the affidavits);Mei Chai Yev. U.S.Dept. of Justice,
489 F.3d517, 519(2d Cir. 2007)(concludingthat an immigrationjudge mayreasonablyinfer
thatwhenanasylumapplicantsubmitsstrikingly similaraffidavits,theapplicantis thecommon
source).Nevertheless,with regardto andMeomments
regardingpetitioner'spublishedandpresente wor theregulationscontaina separatecriterion
regardingthe authorshipof scholarlyarticles. 8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(vi). The AAO will not
presumethat evidencerelatingto or evenmeetingthe scholarlyarticlescriterionis presumptive
evidencethat the petitioneralsomeetsthis criterion. Here it shouldbe emphasizedthat the
regulatorycriteriaareseparateanddistinctfromoneanother.Becauseseparatecriteriaexistfor
authorshipof scholarlyarticlesandoriginal contributionsof majorsignificance,USCISclearly
doesnot view thetwo asbeinginterchangeable.To holdotherwisewouldrendermeaninglessthe
statutoryrequirementfor extensiveevidenceor theregulatoryrequirementthatapetitionermeetat
leastthreeseparatecriteria. Publicationsand presentationsare not sufficient evidenceunder
8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(v)absentevidencethat they wereof "major significance." Kazarianv.
USCIS,580F.3d1030,1036(9* Cir.2009)aff'd inpart 596F.3d1115(9thCir.2010).In 2010,
theKazariancourtreaffirmedits holdingthattheAAO did not abuseits discretionin findingthat
thealienhadnotdemonstratedcontributionsof majorsignificance.596F.3dat 1122.Thus,there
is no presumptionthat everypublishedarticleor conferencepresentationis a contributionof
major significance;rather,the petitionermust documentthe actualimpact of his article or
presentation.
In responseto thedirector'srequestforevidence,thepetitionersubmittedcitationindicesreflecting
anaggregateof 81citesto sevenof hispublishedarticles. Sixteenof thelistedcitationsareself-
citesby thepetitioneror hiscoauthors.Self-citationisanormal,expectedpractice.Self-citation
cannot,however,demonstratetheresponseof independentresearchers.TheAAO notesthatthe
numberof independentcitationsper articleis minimalto moderate.For instance,the submitted
indicesreflectthatnoneof thepetitioner'sarticleswasindependentlycitedto morethantwenty
times. Specifically:
1. "Caveolin-1scaffolddomaininteractswith TRPC1andIP3R3to regulateCa2+store
release-inducedCa2+entryin endothelialcells"(AmericanJournalof Physiologv-Cell
Physiology)wasindependentlycitedto thirteentimes(plustwo self-citationsby the
petitioner'scoauthors);
2. "Effect of curcuminon proliferationof humanretinalendothelialcellsunderin vitro
conditions" (InvestigativeOphthalmologyand Visual Science)was independently
citedto twelvetimes(plustwo self-citationsby thepetitioner'scoauthors);
3. "Calcium-mediatedStress Kinase Activation by DMP1 Promotes Osteoblast
Differentiation"(Journal of Biological Chemistry)wasindependentlycitedto once
(plusoneself-citationby thepetitioner'scoauthors);
Page10
4. "The lymphocyteas a cellularmodelto studyinsightsinto the pathophysiologyof
diabetesandits complications"(Annalsof theNew YorkAcademyof Sciences)was
independentlycited to five times (plus four self-citations by the petitioner's
coauthors);
5. "Biochemicalandmolecularmechanismsof diabeticretinopathy"(CurrentScience)
was independentlycitedto nineteentimes (plus four self-citationsby the petitioner
andhiscoauthors);
6. "Ca2+influx via TRPCchannelsinducesNF-kappaB-dependentA20 expressionto
prevent thrombin-inducedapoptosisin endothelialcells" (AmericanJournal of
Physiology-CellPhysiology)wasindependentlycitedto twice;and
7. "A novel advancedglycation index and its associationwith diabetes and
microangiopathy"(Metabolism)wasindependentlycitedto thirteentimes(plusthree
self-citationsby thepetitioner'scoauthors).
Merelysubmittingdocumentationreflectingthatthepetitioner'swork hasbeencitedby othersin
their published articles is insufficient to establish eligibility for this criterion without
documentaryevidencereflectingthatthepetitioner'swork hasbeenof "majorsignificancein the
field." Generally,the numberof citationsis reflectiveof the petitioner'soriginal findingsand
that the field hastakensomeinterestin thepetitioner'swork. It is not, however,anautomatic
indicatorthatthepetitioner'swork hasbeenof majorsignificancein thefield. Thepetitionerhas
not establishedthat the minimalto moderatenumberof independentcitationsperarticlefor his
publishedwork isindicativeof originalcontributionsof majorsignificancein the field.
In an October26, 2011lettersubmittedin responseto the director'srequestfor evidence,
states:
In the courseof [thepetitioner's]work, hedevelopedandestablishedanin vitro retinal
vascular model to study the signaling cascadeinvolved in retinal angiogenesis.His
innovative and uniquely successfulapproach to isolate and propagate the vascular
endothelial cells from retina, procured from human cadaveric eyes is an appropriate
model to studythe pathogenesisassociatedwith retinal diseases.Using this exceptional
in vitro human cell model, he was the first in the world to demonstratethat the
uncontrolledproliferationof retinal endothelialcell uponthe exposureof high glucose
level,a conditionmimickingdiabetesmayberegulatedusinga supplementderivedfrom
a spicecommonlyusedin the diet, Curcumin.Curcuminis an activeingredientfrom a
rhizome,CurcumaLonga.. . . Theoutcomesobtainedfrom his studiescanbedirectly
applicableto savehumanvision affectedby variousretinaldiseasesin its earlystages.
His original findingswerepublishedin aninternationallyacclaimed,highly citedjournal
in the field of Ophthalmology,InvestigativeOphthalmologyand Vision [sic] Science,
2006.
Page11
[The petitioner] embarkedon a project which was gearedtowards unravelingthe
mechanismsthat lead to disruptionand subsequentrepair of the endothelialbarrier.
Using geneticallymodified mice model and other state-of-the-arttechnologies,his
studiesidentified,for the first time,that a scaffoldingregionof a protein(caveolin-1)is
accountablefor theorganizationof calciumhandlingin vascularendothelialcells. Since
calcium levels inside the cells is crucial for the cell survival and vascularbarrier
functions,his findings delineatingan important mechanismby which the cells can
regulatethe calciumlevelsinsidethe cytosolis imperativeandof high significance.His
discoverieswerepublishedin . . .AmericanJournalof Physiology-CellPhysiology. . . .
* * *
[The petitioner]also instigatedhis researchtowardsaddressingthe molecularplayers
involvedin activatingandregulatingthe calciumpermeabletransientreceptorpotential
(TRP) channelsin vascularcell typesand lung models.His investigationsdetermined
novelmechanismsby whichthe cellscanregulateits [sic] calciumhandlingprocess.. . .
Failure in the balanceof calcium levels inside the cells results in vascularbarrier
dysfunctionresultingin variousvasculardiseases.[Thepetitioner]usedhis established
approachesandidentifieda novelmechanismthatthe intracellularcalciumlevelsserves
asa turn-off switchandregulatesthe channelactivity. . . . I cansincerelysaythat his
findingswill developuniquelyeffectiveapproachesto targetthe channelfunctionand
therebyalleviatevascularleakageandother abnormalitiesa causefor variousvascular
diseases.. . . We havesubmitted[thepetitioner's]discoveriesto the highly citedpeer-
reviewedjournalMolecularPharmacologv,which is nowunderrevision.. . . I amvery
muchpositivethatthispaperwill bepublished. . . .
commentsthat the petitioner"was the first in the world to demonstratethat the
uncontrolledproliferationof retinalendothelialcell uponthe exposureof highglucoselevel. . .
may be regulatedusing . . . Curcumin"in InvestigativeOphthalmologyand VisualSciencein
2006, but there is no documentaryevidenceindicatingthat the petitioner'swork hasbeen
frequentlycited by independentresearchersor that his findings otherwiseequateto original
contributionsof major significancein the field. According to the citation index submittedby the
petitioner, the petitioner's article in Investigative Ophthalmologyand Visual Sciencehasbeen
independentlycitedto only a dozentimes sinceits publication in 2006. alsodiscusses
the research findings published by the petitioner in American Journal of Physiology-Cell
Physiologyin 2009,but thecitationevidencesubmittedby thepetitionerfailsto demonstratethat
the petitioner'swork was of major significancein his field. For instance,accordingto the
citationevidencesubmittedby thepetitioner,his articleinAmericanJournalof Physiology-Cell
Physiologyhasbeenindependentlycited to only thirteentimes sinceits publicationin 2009.
Moreover,M doesnot providespecificexamplesof how thepetitioner'swork hasbeen
successfullyimplementedin the pharmaceuticalindustryor medicalfield, or otherwiseequates
to anoriginal contributionof majorsignificancein the field. The petitioner'sfield, like most
science,is research-driven,andtherewould be little point in publishingor presentingresearch
that did not addto the generalpool of knowledgein the field. Accordingto theregulationat
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v),an alien's contributionsmust be not only original but of "major
Page12
significance"in the field. To be considereda contributionof majorsignificancein the field of
science,it canbeexpectedthat theresultswould havealreadybeenreproducedandconfirmedby
otherexpertsandappliedin their work. Otherwise,it is difficult to gaugethe impactof the
petitioner's work. also states that the petitioner's findings regarding novel
mechanismsby which cells canregulatethe calciumhandlingprocesshavebeensubmittedfor
publicationin Molecular Pharmacology.The AAO notes,however,that any impactresulting
from this publicationpost-datesthe March28, 2011filing dateof the petition. As previously
discussed,eligibility must be establishedat the time of filing the petition. 8 C.F.R.
§§ 103.2(b)(1),(12);MatterofKatigbak, 14I&N Dec.at49. A petitioncannotbeapprovedat a
futuredateafterthe petitionerbecomeseligibleundera newsetof facts.Matterof Izummi,22
I&N Dec. at 175.That decisionfurtherprovides,citing Matter of Bardouille, 18I&N Dec. at
114,that USCIScannot"considerfactsthat comeinto beingonly subsequentto the filing of a
petition." M at 176.
Dr. MohamedTrebak,AssociateProfessor,Centerfor CardiovascularSciences,AlbanyMedical
College,states:
I am very much familiar with the importantfindings of [the petitioner)on calcium
signalingin vasculardiseases.I first met [thepetitioner]whenI wasinvited for a talk at
the departmentof pharmacologyat the University of Illinois Chicago. I quickly
recognizedthat [the petitioner] madean incalculablecontributionto Dr. Tiruppathi's
researchprogram.He hasutilized state-of-the-artmoleculartools andidentifieda novel
role for calciumchannelsexpressedin vascularendothelialcells.[Thepetitioner's]recent
findingson canonicaltransientreceptorpotential(TRPC)channelsandits componentsin
mediatingvascularpermeabilityin endothelialcellshasbeensubmittedfor publicationto
the journal Molecular Pharmacology,which is now underrevision. I was extremely
impressedby readingthereviewsandeditors'positivecommentsandam expectingthis
paperto bepublishedsoon.
statesthat the petitioner"identified a novelrole for calciumchannelsexpressedin
vascularendothelialcells," but doesnot provide specific examplesof how the
petitioner's finding hasbeenappliedthroughoutthe pharmacologyfield or otherwiseconstitutes
an original scientific contribution of major significancein the field. also comments
that the petitioner's "recent findings on canonicaltransientreceptorpotential (TRPC) channels
andits componentsin mediatingvascularpermeabilityin endothelialcellshasbeensubmitted
for publicationto thejournalMolecularPharmacology."TheAAO againnotesthatanyimpact
resultingfrom this publicationpost-datesthe March28, 2011filing of the petition. Eligibility
mustbe establishedat the time of filing the petition. 8 C.F.R.§§ 103.2(b)(1),(12);Matter of
Katigbak,14I&N Dec.at49.
in the Departmentof Ophthalmologyand Visual Sciences,
Universityof WisconsinSchoolof MedicineandPublicHealth,states:
I wasmostexcitedwhen[thepetitioner]approachedmewith an intentionto collaborate
in his studies.I was really impressedwith his researchfindings delineatinga unique
Page13
patternof ion channelsin retinal vascularangiogenesis.Sinceour laboratoryis one
amongthe few researchersdevelopedthe modelsto studyretinal vasculature,I wasvery
muchinterestedto testhis hypothesisin our retinalangiogenesismodels.Our laboratory
is nowtestingwith theinhibitorsspecificto the identifiedcalciumchannelsbothin CNV
[choroidalneovascularization]andOIR [oxygen-inducedischemicretinopathy]animal
models.. . . I cansincerelysaythat thesefindingswill be soonpublishedin a highly
cited peer-reviewedjournal. Also I am highly confident that the novel findings,
expertise,andknowledgehe acquiredin thepastwill serveto increasethepossibilityof
his successto obtain funding for his researchfrom federalagencies. In additionhis
recentachievementon obtaininganAmericanHeartAssociationfellowshipsubstantiates
hisextraordinaryability in thefield of medicine.
statesthatthepetitioner'sfindingsregardingtheinhibitorsspecificto theidentified
calciumchannelsboth in CNV andOIR animalmodels"will soonbe published"andthat the
petitionerrecentlyreceivedanAmericanHeartAssociationfellowship(July 2011). TheAAO
notesthatthepetitionerpublishedtheaforementionedfindingsandreceivedhis AmericanHeart
Associationfellowshipsubsequentto the petition'sMarch28, 2011filing date. As previously
discussed,eligibility must be establishedat the time of filing the petition. 8 C.F.R.
§§103.2(b)(1),(12);MatterofKatigbak, 14I&N Dec.at 49. Accordingly,theAAO will not
considertheprecedingaccomplishmentsasevidenceto establishthepetitioner'seligibility.
AssociateProfessor,Departmentsof AnesthesiologyandPharmacology,
UIC, states:
After he joined laboratoryin 2006, [the petitioner's]
researchinterestsweregearedtowardsunravelingthemechanismsthatleadto disruption
andsubsequentrepairof theendothelialbarrier.Usinggeneticallymodifiedmicemodels
and other state-of-the-arttechnologies,his studiesidentified for the first time that a
scaffoldingregionof theendothelialcell proteincaveolin-1accountsfor theorganization
of calciumhandlingin vascularendothelialcells. His discoverieswerepublishedin a
highly citedpeer-reviewedjournal,TheAmericanJournalof Physiology-CellPhysiology,
2009.Using caveolin-1knockout mices[sic], [the petitioner] madethe original discovery
that the scaffolding domain of caveolin-1 interactswith the transientreceptorpotential
channel(TRPCl) andinositol 1,4,5 trisphosphatereceptor(IP3R)andregulatescalcium
entry in endothelialcells. Finding this work particularly interesting,I cited [the
petitioner's] original discoveriesin my invited book chapterentitled "Caveolaeand
Signalingin PulmonaryVascularEndothelialandSmoothMuscleCells."
* * *
[Thepetitioner's]novelfindingssubstantiallyadvanceour understandingof thesignaling
eventsinvolvedin theregulationof pulmonaryendothelialbarrierfunctionandmoveus
closer toward being able to control the molecularmechanismsthat underscorethe
diseasesprocessesinherentin ALI/ARDs patientsandtherebymayfostertreatmentsthat
promotewoundhealingandpreventfurtherpathogenesis.
Page14
opinesthat the petitioner'swork "may foster treatmentsthat promotewound
healing,"but doesnot providespecificexamplesof how the petitioner'sresearch
findingswerealreadyof majorsignificanceto the field asof the dateof filing the petition. As
previously discussed,eligibility must be establishedat the time of filing. 8 C.F.R.
§§ 103.2(b)(1),(12);Matter ofKatigbak, 14I&N Dec.at 49. A petitionercannotfile a petition
under this classificationbasedsolely on the expectationof future eligibility. Id. The
documentationsubmittedby the petitionerdoesnot showthat his work hasbeeneffectively
appliedin the healthcarefield asa medicalor pharmaceuticaltreatment,thathis2009articlein
American Journal of Physiology-CellPhysiologyhas been heavily cited by independent
researchers,or that his findingsotherwiseequateto original scientific contributionsof major
significancein the field. Vague,solicitedlettersfrom colleaguesthatdo not specificallyidentify
original contributionsor providespecificexamplesof how thosecontributionsinfluencedthe
field areinsufficient. Kazarianv. USCIS,580 F.3dat 1036aff'd in part 596F.3dat 1115. In
2010,theKazariancourtreiteratedthattheAAO's conclusionthat"lettersfromphysicsprofessors
attestingto [the alien's] contributionsin the field" were insufficientwas "consistentwith the
relevantregulatorylanguage."596F.3dat 1122.
andChief of Diabetology, DiabetesSpecialtiesCentre,
MadrasDiabetesResearchFoundation,India,states:
As theheadof theresearchfoundationwhere[thepetitioner]did his Ph.D.,I endorsehis
extraordinaryresearchabilities. [The petitioner]hasexcellentcredentialsto his credit
with a Ph.D. degreein retinal vascularbiology. During his graduatestudies,he had
developedand establishedan in vitro retinal vascularmodel to study the signaling
cascadeinvolved in retinal angiogenesis.His innovative and uniquely successful
approachto isolateandpropagatethe vascularendothelialcells from retina,procured
from humancadavericeyesis anappropriatemodelto studythepathogenesisassociated
with retinaldiscuses.Usingthis in vitro humancell model,hewasperhapsthefirst in the
world to demonstratethat the uncontrolledproliferationof retinal endothelialcell upon
the exposureof high glucoselevel, a conditionmimicking diabetesmay be regulated
using a supplementderivedfrom a spicecommonlyusedin the diet, Curcumin.His
original findingswere publishedin InvestigativeOphthalmologyand Vision[sic] Science
in 2006.
commentson the petitioner's Ph.D. researchthat led to his article publishedin
InvestigativeOphthalmologyand VisualSciencein 2006. Thepetitionerhasnot establishedthat
themoderatenumberof independentcitationsfor this article(twelve)is indicativeof anoriginal
scientificcontributionof major significancein the field. Any researchmustbe shownto be
original andpresentsomebenefit if it is to receivefunding and attentionfrom the scientific
community. Any Ph.D.thesisor postdoctoralresearch,in orderto be acceptedfor graduation,
publication,presentation,or funding, must offer new and useful informationto the pool of
knowledge. It doesnot follow that everyscientistwho performsoriginal researchthat addsto
thegeneralpool of knowledgehasinherentlymadea contributionof "major significance"to the
field asa whole. In his letterof support,M fails to providespecificexamplesof how
Page15
the petitioner'sPh.D.work hasbeenwidely utilized by otherresearchscientistsor otherwise
constitutesoriginal contributionsof major significancein the field.
SeniorScientist,NationalInstituteofNutrition, India,states:
[The petitioner's] work on the potentially important discoverieson developing a
treatmentmodelfor retinalabnormalitiesis highly imperative.To my knowledgehewas
the first scientistwho hasdevelopedandestablisheda humanretinalvascularmodelin
India. His findings delineatingthe role of curcuminin regulatingthe hyperglycemia-
inducedretinalangiogenesiswas[sic] publishedin a peerreviewedjournalInvestigative
Ophthalmologyand VisualSciences[sic] in 2006.
In the samemanneras commentson the petitioner'sPh.D. research
projectandpublishedarticlein InvestigativeOphthalmologyand VisualScience,but
doesnot indicatethat the petitioner'swork hasresultedin effectivepharmaceuticaltreatments
for retinal abnormalities. Further,the citation evidencesubmittedby the petitioner for the
precedingarticle doesnot showthat his publishedfindings havebeenheavily cited or were
otherwiseof majorsignificanceto hisfield.
Professorin theDepartmentof OralBiology,UIC, states:
One of [the petitioner's] discoverieswas published in the American Journal of
Physiology-CellPhysiology has createdprofound interest in the field of channel
physiology.Sincemost of the discoveriesin the past have addressedthe functional
aspectsof calciumpermeablechannels,his researchis the first of its kind to unveilthe
mechanismsthat regulatethe channelactivity. In detail, his findings for the first time
identified a scaffoldingregion of a protein (caveolin-1)playing a crucial role in the
organizationof calcium handling in vascularcells. Consideringthe fact that either
increaseor decreasein the level of calcium inside the cells is lethal, his findings
addressedanimportantmechanismby whichthe cellscanregulatethelevelsof calcium
by itself. . . . [The petitioner's] novel findings on the regulatoryfunctionsof the
scaffoldingproteinsmay be usedto alleviatethe vascularabnormalitiescausedby
irregular calciumhomeostasis.
* * *
[Thepetitioner's]extensiveknowledgeandexpertisein the field of channelphysiology
urgedmeto approachhim with anintentionto seekhis expertopinionandto collaborate
withhim.
* * *
The findingsmadewith his collaborationresultedin a publicationin high impactpeer
reviewedjoumal, Journal of Biological Chemistry,2010. The discoveryaddednew
insightandopenedupa newareaof researchin thefield of osteoblastdifferentiation,a
conditionthat is essentialfor bone formation.Thesefindings for the first time
Page16
demonstrateda novel role for calcium in regulatinggeneexpressionand osteoblast
differentiation.It alsocreateda high impactin the field of researchin boneformation.
His novel findingson the role of calciummay leadto developmentof newtherapeutic
strategytowardsregulatingosteoblastdifferentiationandboneformation.
discussesthepetitioner'sarticlesinAmericanJournalof Physiology-CellPhysiology
andJournal of Biological Chemistry,but the petitionerhas not establishedthat the limited
numberof independentcitesto thesetwo articles(thirteenandone,respectively)is indicativeof
originalcontributionsof majorsignificancein the field. alsoexpressesheropinions
that the petitioner's work "may be usedto alleviatethe vascularabnormalitiescausedby
irregular calcium homeostasis"and "may lead to developmentof new therapeuticstrategy
towardsregulatingosteoblastdifferentiationandboneformation,"but thereis no documentary
evidenceshowingthatthepetitioner'sfindingshadalreadysignificantlyimpactedthe field asof
thedateof filing. As previouslydiscussed,eligibility mustbeestablishedat thetime of filing.
8 C.F.R.§§ 103.2(b)(1),(12);MatterofKatigbak, 14I&N Dec.at 49. A petitionercannotfile a
petitionunderthisclassificationbasedsolelyontheexpectationof futureeligibility. Id.
While the AAO acknowledgesthe originality of the petitioner'sfmdings,the referenceletters
submittedby the petitionerdo not indicatethat independentresearchersarecurrentlyapplying
thepetitioner'sresearchfindingsin theirwork, soasto establishthatthesefmdingshavealready
impactedthe field in a significantmanner.Accordingly,while the AAO doesnot disputethe
originality of the petitioner'sresearchandfindings,aswell asthe fact that the field hastaken
somenotice of his work, the actualpresentimpact of the petitioner's work has not been
established.Rather,the petitioner'sreferencesappearto speculateabouthow the petitioner's
findingsmay affectthe field at somepoint in the future. Eligibility mustbe establishedat the
timeof filing thepetition. 8 C.F.R.§§103.2(b)(1),(12);MatterofKatigbak, 14I&N Dec.at
49. A petitioncannotbe approvedat a futuredateafterthepetitionerbecomeseligibleundera
newsetof facts. Matter ofhummi, 22 I&N Dec.at 175. Thatdecisionfurtherprovides,citing
Matter of Bardouille, 18 I&N Dec. at 114,that USCIS cannot"considerfactsthat comeinto
beingonly subsequentto the filing of apetition." Id. at 176. Manyof the lettersproffereddo in
fact discussfar morepersuasivelythe futurepromiseof the petitioner'sresearchandthe impact
that may result from his work, rather than how his past researchalready qualifies as a
contributionof majorsignificancein the field. Theassertionthatthepetitioner'sresearchresults
may somedayresultin treatmentmethodsor therapeuticstrategiesis not adequateto establish
thathisfindingsarealreadyrecognizedasmajorcontributionsin thefield.
Professorof MedicineandPharmacology,UIC, states:
[The petitioner]madekey findingson the regulatorymechanismsof calciumentry in
vascular endothelial cells. His findings were published in American Journal of
Physiology-CellPhysiology,2009,in which I serveasanAssociateEditor. His findings
was[sic] recognizedandchosento beoneof thebestarticlesin theissue,whichresulted
in a dedicatedEditorialFocuspublishedin thesameissuebyM and
anassociateeditorin the samejournal,I canevidentlystatethatonly theresearch
articles with original discovery(not merely replicatingthe work of others)will be
consideredfor EditorialFocus.
Page17
commentson the petitioner's findings publishedin American Journal of Physiologv-
CellPhysiology,but doesnotprovidespecificexamplesofhow thepetitioner'swork is
being utilized by othersin the field. Further,as previouslydiscussed,the citation evidence
submittedby the petitioner for the precedingarticle indicatesthat his findings have been
independentlycitedto thirteentimes. Thepetitionerhasnot establishedthatthis moderatelevel
of citation is indicativeof anoriginal scientificcontributionof majorsignificancein the field.
Moreover,while the petitioner'spublishedfindingsarediscussedin threeparagraphsof a two-
pageEditorialFocusarticleappearingin the sameissueof AmericanJournal of Physiology-Cell
Physiology,thereis no documentaryevidencedemonstratingthatthepetitioner'sfmdingsonthe
regulatorymechanismsof calciumentryin vascularendothelialcellshavebeenwidely applied
by independentresearchers,utilized to developan effective treatmentmethod,or that they
otherwiseequateto originalcontributionsof majorsignificancein the field.
The opinionsof the petitioner'sreferencesare not without weight andhavebeenconsidered
above. USCISmay, in its discretion,useasadvisoryopinionsstatementssubmittedasexpert
testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988).
However,USCIS is ultimately responsiblefor making the final determinationregardingan
alien'seligibility for thebenefitsought. Id Thesubmissionof referenceletterssupportingthe
petition is not presumptiveevidenceof eligibility; USCISmay evaluatethe contentof those
lettersasto whethertheysupportthealien'seligibility. Seeid. at 795-796;seealsoMatterof V-
K-, 24 I&N Dec.500,n.2(BIA 2008)(notingthat expertopiniontestimonydoesnot purportto
be evidenceasto "fact"). Thus,the contentof thereferences'statementsandhowtheybecame
awareof the petitioner'sreputationare important considerations. Even when written by
independentexperts,letterssolicitedby analienin supportof animmigrationpetitionareof less
weightthanpreexisting,independentevidencethatonewould expectof aresearchscientistwho
hasmadeoriginalcontributionsof majorsignificancein the field. Without additional,specific
evidenceshowingthat the petitioner'swork has been unusuallyinfluential, widely applied
throughouthis field,or hasotherwiserisento thelevelof contributionsof majorsignificance,the
AAO cannotconcludethathemeetsthisregulatorycriterion.
Evidenceofthe alien'sauthorshipofscholarly articlesin thefield, inprofessionalor
majortradepublicationsor othermajormedia.
The petitionerhas documentedhis authorshipof scholarlyarticlesand, thus, has submitted
qualifyingevidencepursuantto 8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(vi). Accordingly,the AAO affirms the
director'sfindingthatthepetitionermeetsthisregulatorycriterion.
Evidencethatthealien hasperformedin a leadingor critical rolefor organizations
or establishmentsthathavea distinguishedreputation.
The petitionersubmittedlettersof supportdiscussinghis graduateresearchat MadrasDiabetes
ResearchFoundationand his postdoctoralresearchat both WayneStateUniversity andUIC.
While the petitionerperformedadmirablyon the researchprojectsto which he was assigned,
thereis no evidencedemonstratingthathis subordinateroleswereleadingor critical for Madras
Page18
DiabetesResearchFoundation,WayneStateUniversity, andUIC. For example,thereis no
organizationalchartor otherevidencedocumentingwherethe petitioner'spositionsfell within the
generalhierarchyof theresearchersandprofessorsattheinstitutionswhereheworked. TheAAO
notesthatthe petitioner'srole at MadrasDiabetesResearchFoundationwasthatof a graduate
student. Moreover,the petitioner'spostdoctoralappointmentsat WayneStateUniversity and
UIC were designedto provide specializedresearchexperienceand training in his field of
endeavorf The petitioner's evidencedoesnot demonstratehow his temporaryappointments
differentiatedhim from the otherresearchscientistsemployedby the precedinginstitutions,let
alonetheir tenuredfaculty and principal investigators.The documentationsubmittedby the
petitionerdoesnotestablishthathewasresponsiblefor hisresearchinstitutions'successor standing
to adegreeconsistentwiththemeaningof "leadingor criticalrole." Accordingly,thepetitionerhas
notestablishedthathemeetstheplainlanguagerequirementsof thisregulatorycriterion.
B. Summary
The petitionerhasfailedto satisfythe antecedentregulatoryrequirementof threecategoriesof
evidence.
III. CONCLUSION
Thedocumentationsubmittedin supportof a claimof extraordinaryability mustclearlydemonstrate
that the alien hasachievedsustainednationalor internationalacclaimand is one of the small
percentagewhohasrisento theverytopof thefieldof endeavor.
Evenif thepetitionerhadsubmittedtherequisiteevidenceunderatleastthreeevidentiarycategories,
in accordancewith theKazarianopinion,the next stepwould be a final meritsdeterminationthat
considersall of theevidencein thecontextof whetheror not thepetitionerhasdemonstrated:(1) a
"levelof expertiseindicatingthattheindividualis oneof thatsmallpercentagewhohaverisento the
very top of the[ir] field of endeavor"and(2) "that thealienhassustainednationalor international
acclaimandthathisor herachievementshavebeenrecognizedin the field of expertise."8 C.F.R.
§§204.5(h)(2)and(3);seealsoKazarian,596F.3dat 1119-20.WhiletheAAO concludesthatthe
evidenceis not indicativeof alevelof expertiseconsistentwith thesmallpercentageattheverytop of
thefieldor sustainednationalor internationalacclaim,theAAO neednotexplainthatconclusionin a
4 With respectto Biochemists,the Departmentof Labor'sOccupationalOutlook Handbook,2012-13Edition, states:
"Most biochemistry. . . Ph.D.holdersbegintheir careersin a temporarypostdoctoralresearchposition,which
typically lasts2 to 3 years. Duringtheirpostdoctoralappointment,theywork with experiencedscientistsasthey
continueto learn about their specialtiesor developa broaderunderstandingof related areasof research.
Postdoctoralpositionsfrequentlyoffer theopportunityto publishresearchfindings.A solidrecordof published
researchis essentialto get a permanentposition doing basicresearch,especiallyfor thoseseekinga permanent
college or university faculty position." Seehttp://www.bls.gov/ooh/life-physical-and-social-science/biochemists-and-
biophysicists.htm#tab-7,accessedon October25, 2012,copyincorporatedinto therecordof proceeding.
Page19
finalmeritsdetermination.5Rather,theproperconclusionisthatthepetitionerhasfailedto satisfythe
antecedentregulatoryrequirementof threecategoriesof evidence.Id. at 1122.
The petitionerhasnot establishedeligibility pursuantto section203(b)(1)(A)of the Act andthe
petitionmaynotbeapproved.
Theburdenof proofin visapetitionproceedingsremainsentirelywith thepetitioner.Section291of
theAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1361.Here,thepetitionerhasnot sustainedthatburden.Accordingly,theappeal
will bedismissed.
ORDER: Theappealisdismissed.
5TheAAOmaintainsdenovoreviewof all questionsof factandlaw. SeeSoltanev.DOJ,381F.3d143,145(3dCir.
2004). In anyfutureproceeding,theAAO maintainsthejurisdictionto conducta finalmeritsdeterminationastheoffice
thatmadethelastdecisionin thismatter.8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(ii).Seealsosection103(a)(1)of theAct; section
204(b)of theAct; DHSDelegationNumber0150.1(effectiveMarch1,2003);8 C.F.R.§ 2.1(2003);8 C.F.R.
§ 103.l(f)(3)(iii)(2003);Matterof Aurelio,19I&N Dec.458,460(BIA 1987)(holdingthatlegacyINS,now
USCIS,is thesoleauthoritywith thejurisdiction to decidevisapetitions).