dismissed EB-1A Case: Bioinformatics

(b)(6)
DATE: DEC 0 5 2014 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office of Administrative Appeals 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
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: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
�4 ���berg 
� ef, 1\.dministrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center , denied the immigrant visa petition and the 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. We will dismiss the appeal. 
The petitio ner, a Bioin formatics Research Scientist, seeks classification as an employment -based 
immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)( 1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 
8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)( 1)(A ), as an alien of extraordinary ability in the scienc es. Th e director 
determined that the petitioner had not met the requisite criteria for classification as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, the petition er submits a statement contesting the director's decision and additional 
evidence. In her statement, the petitioner asserts that she meets the categories of evidence at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h )(3)( iv), (v), and (vi). 
I. LAW 
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. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service 
(INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for indiv iduals 
seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 101 51 Cong., 2d Sess. 59 
(1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to 
those individuals in that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. !d.; 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h )(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h )(3) sets forth a multi-part ana lysis. First, a pet1t10ner can 
demonstrate the alien' s sustained acclaim and the recognition of the alien 's achi evements in the field 
through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, interna tionally recognize d award). If the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
petitioner does not submit this evidence, then a petitioner must submit sufficient qualifying evidence 
that meets at least three of the ten categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5 (h) (3) (i)-(x). 
The submission of evidence relating to at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, 
establish eligibility for this classification. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 111 5 (9th Cir . 2010) 
(discussing a two-part review where the evidence is first counted and then, if satisfying the required 
number of criteria, consid ered in the context of a final merits determination). See also Rijal v. USCJS, 
772 F,Supp .2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011 ) (affirming USCIS' proper application of Kazarian), aff'd, 683 
F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir . 2012); Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F.Supp.3d 126, 13 1- 32 (D .D.C. 2013) (finding th at 
USCIS appropriately applied the two-step review); Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec . 369, 376 
(AAO 20 10) (holdi ng that the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alon e but by 
its quality" and that users examines "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and 
credibility, both individually and within the context of the totality of the eviden ce, to determin e 
whether the fact to be proven is probably true"). 
II . ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Th e petition er earned her Ph.D. in Statistics from in 2008 under 
the supervision of Dr. Professor and Chair, Department of Statistical Science, and 
Dr . Professor Emeritus of Mathematics and Statistics, Departme nt of 
Statistical Science . At the time of filing, the petition er was "employed by as a 
Bioinformatics Research Scientist and ... assigned to a full-time, long-term contract research position 
in the Statistical Genomics Unit of the . within the 
" The petition er has submitted documentation pertaining to the followin g 
categories of evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5 (h)( 3).1 
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 allied field of specification for which classification is 
sought. 
The petitioner submitted evidence demonstratin g that she peer-reviewed manuscripts for 
_ 
Accordin gly, the eviden ce supports the 
director's finding that the petition er meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's original scientific, scholarly, artistic , athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field. 
Th e petitioner submitted letters of support, her publications and presentations, and citation evidence 
for her published work. The director acknowledged the petitioner's submission of the precedin g 
evidence, but found that it was not sufficient to demonstrate that the petition er's work equated to 
1 We have reviewed all of the evidence the petitioner has submitted and will address those criteria the 
petitioner claims to meet or for which the petitioner has submitted relevant and probative evidence. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
original contributions of major significance in the field. For example, the director determined the 
petitioner had not shown that her work had "made a significant impact within [her ] field," that her 
discoveries had "been heavily cited or widely impl emented," or that her findings were otherwise of 
"major signifi cance ." The director therefore concluded that the petitioner did not establish eligibility 
for this regulatory criterion. 
The plain languag e of thi s criterion requires "[ e ]vidence of the alien 's original scientific, scholarly, 
artistic, athletic, or business-related contribu tions of major signifi cance in the field." Here, the 
evidence must be reviewed to see whether it rises to th e level of original scientif ic contributions "of 
major significance in the field." The phrase "major significa nce" is not superfluous and, thus, it has 
some meaning. Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, L.P. , 51 F. 3d 28, 31 (3 rd Ci r. 1995) 
quoted inAPWUv. Potter, 343 F.3d 61 9, 626 (2nd Cir. Sep 15, 2003). 
The petitioner submitted evidence showing that she had published five journal articles at the time of 
filing the Form 1- 140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, on August 13, 20 13 . The regulations, 
however, contain a separate criterion regardin g the authorship of scholarly articles in professional 
publicati ons. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h )(3)( vi). However, the petiti oner 's sixth journal article en titled 
not published in j until 20 14. In addition , petition er's manuscript ent itled 
� 
was 
., was under revision and has not yet been publish ed. Thus, any impa ct resulting 
from the latter two articles post-dates the August 13, 2013 filing of the Form 1-140 petition. 
Eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 8 C.P.R. § 103 .2(b)(1), (12 ); Matter of Katigbak, 
14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 197 1). 
In the appe al brief, th e petitioner asserts that the number of publications in the mathematics/statistics 
field is "much less frequent than tha t of other fields such as cell biology, physics, medicine, etc." 
The petitioner submits an article entitled ' which 
states th at "mathema ticians tend to be listed as authors of fewer papers than their colleagues in the 
experimental sciences." The director's decision, howev er, did not take issue with the number of 
journal articles published by the petitioner. Nor did the director's decision includ e any com p arison 
of the petition er's number of publications with that of researchers in experimental science fields. 
Rather, the director determined that the petitioner had not demon strated that her work wa s of major 
significance in the field. 
In addition, the petitioner submits a Janu arv 2005 article in Notices of the 
1 entitled that states: 
The data we used were kindly provided by the 
approximate ly the time period 1940- 1999. 
How Much Research Is Going On? 
and cover 
The currently catalogs (and in most cases publishes 
reviews or edited author summaries of) about 86,000 published items per year that can 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
gen erally be classified as research in the mathem atical sciences. At the turn of the century, 
the database contained about 1. 6 million papers (and books), produced by about 300,000 
authors. 
* * * 
Figure 1 shows the number of authors in the database with different numbers of papers. 
About 43% of all authors have just one paper. The median is 2, the mean 6.87, and the 
standard deviation 15.35. It is interesting (for tenure review committees?) to note that the 
60th percentile is 3 papers, the 70th percent ile is 4, the 80th percentile is 8, the 90th 
percentile is 17, and the 95th percentile is 30. 
The issue here, however, is not the number of publications authored by the petition er, but whe ther 
her research findings are of major signific ance in the field. 
The petitioner also asserts that the citation rate in the mathem atics/statistics field is "much lower 
than that of other fields such as cell biolog y, physics, medicine, etc." The petitioner point s to the 
aforementioned article entitled "Assessing research in the mathematical sciences" that states: 
"Particula rly coupled with the fact that in many subdisciplines of mathematics publication is 
infrequent, this means that the numbers of citations of a paper in the mat hematical sciences is 
generally lower tha n that of a paper in many other scien ces." In addition, the petitioner submits a 
June 11 , 2008 report from the with the 
The report states: 
The special citation culture of math ematics, with low citation counts for journals, papers, and 
authors, makes it especially vulnera ble to the abuse of citation statistics. 
* * * 
We do not dismiss citation statistics as a tool for assessing the quality of research - citation 
data an d statistics can provide some valuable information . We recognize that assessment 
must be practical, and for this reason easily derived citation statistics almost surely will be 
part of the process. But citation data provide only a limited and incomplete view of research 
quality, and the statistics derived from citation data are sometimes poorly understood and 
misused. Research is too important to measure its value with only a single coarse tool. 
The report acknowledges the value of citation evidence for assessing the "quality of research" and 
states that mathematics is a field "with low citation counts" relative to other scientific disciplines. 
The preceding information, however, does not disprove that a high citation count in the ma thematics 
field can be a reliable in dicator of significant impact in the field. Num erous favorable inde pendent 
citations for an article authored by the petitioner may indicate that other researchers have been 
influenced by her work and are familiar with it. A scant citation record, on the other hand, may 
ind icate that the petitioner 's fin dings have gone largely unnoticed by others in the field. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
Initially, the petitioner submitted search results from Google Scholar reflecting that her article 
entitled lii that she 
coauthored with Dr . and Dr . was cited to two times. The two citati on results, 
however, were self-cites by Dr . and Dr. to their own article. Self-citation is a 
normal , expected practice . Self-citation, however, does not show to what exten t a researcher has 
influenced oth ers' work. 
In addition, the petitioner submitted search results from Google Scholar reflecting that her article in 
entitled ' a mixture framework for ident ifying transcription factor and a 
coregulator motif in J was independently cited to five time s. The petitioner also 
submitted a copy of one of the preceding articles that cited to her work entitled ' 
_ 
·On appe al, the petitioner submits updated 
search results from Google Schola r as of May 12, 20 14 reflecting that ' a mix.ture 
framework for ident ifying transcription factor and a coregulator motif in has now 
been cited to an aggregate of eight time s. One of the three additional articles citing to the 
petitioner 's work, entitled ' 
_ 
_ 
'was published in November and post-dates the filing of the 
Form I-140 petition on August 13, 20 13. Again , eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 
8 C.P.R. § 103 .2(b)( 1), (12 ); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. a 49. Accordingly, we cannot 
consider the latest citation from November 20 13 as evidence to establish the petitioner 's eligibility at 
the time of filing. Regardless, the petitioner has not established that the number of inde pendent cites 
for her article in is indi cative of an original scientific contribution of "ma jor 
signi ficance" in the field. Moreover, the petitioner did not submit any citation evidenc e for her 
remaining article s. 
I addition to the Google Schola r citation evidence, the petitioner submitted inf ormation from 
;bowing the ranking and 
impact factor of the journal that published her work. Althoug h a journal 's ranking 
and impact factor can provide an approximation of the prestige of the journal, the ranking does not 
demonstrate the major significance of every article published in that journal. The petitioner must 
establish that the findings in her article have affected the bioinf ormatics field at a level in dicative of 
original contributions of major significance in the field. 
The petitioner also points to documentation showing that her article entitled a mixture 
framework for ident ifying transcription factor and a coregulator motif in in 
was cited to at a higher than average rate relative to other articles published in the 
field of mat hematics and computer science. An above average citation rate, however, does not 
necessarily equate to contributions of "major significa nce" in the field. The petitioner has not 
established that the above average citation rate and number of independent cites to the preceding 
article is indic ative of a contribution of major significance in her field. 
In addition, the petitioner 's appe al brief points to the letters of support as evidenc e that she meets 
this criterion. 
Dr . 
Pharm acology, 
Head, Medicinal Chemistry Group, retired, Laboratory of Toxicology and 
states: 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
Since 2009 [the petitioner] played a key role in federally funded research projects in 
identifying the co-regulation or joint effect of multiple transc ription factors from high 
throughput DNA sequence data at the _ _ . . . While most currently existing methods 
only identif y one genetic factor at a time, [the petitioner] is the first scientist who developed 
an innova tive computational/statistical analysis to detect and discover the co-regulati on by 
multiple transc ription factors from large-scaled DNA sequence data associated with human 
disease. 
[The petiti oner's] method has an immediately direct contribution to our understanding of the 
genetic causes of human disease. Applying this technique to large-scaled DNA sequence 
datasets, she successfully identif ied the co-existence of two transc ription factors and 
associated with liver disease . regulates metabolism in the pancre as and liver, 
and are essential for sexual dimorphism in liver canc er. is critical for liver 
development, metabolic regulation, and function; further evidence suggests a suppressor role 
in liver cance r. 
At this time, th e genetic basis for diseases, especially cancer, is poorly understood and will 
undoubted ly continue to be the frontier in medical research .... [The petitio ne r's] discovery 
of the co-regulation of the transcription factors provided evidenc e on their 
joint genetic effect in causing liver canc er. This represents a major milestone for developing 
novel diagnoses, prevention and new gene therapy treatment. Her stunningly novel and 
brilli ant research has significantly increased our understanding of the interplay between 
genetic variants in humans and human liver disease ; her ongoing work is of key [sic] not only 
for th e many Americans now living with liver can cer, but also for the entire population at 
risk for liver diseases. 
Dr. comments that the petitioner developed a computati onal/statistical analysis metho d to 
determine co-regulation by multiple genetic transc ription factors, but there is no in depende nt 
evidence showing tha t her method has substantially affected genetics research practices in the field 
or was otherwise indi cative of major significan ce to her field. In addition, while Dr. 
menti ons that the petitione r's "discovery of the co-regulation of the transc ription factors and 
provided evidence on their joint genetic effect in causing liver canc er," he does not provide 
specific examples of how the petitione r's work has been utilized to develop novel diagnoses, 
prevention methods, or novel gene therapy treatments for the disease. Although the petitio ner 's 
postdoctoral research has value, any research must be original and likely to present some benefit if it 
is to receive funding and attention from the scientif ic or academic community. In order for a 
univ ersity, publisher or grant or to accept any research for graduation, publi cation or funding, the 
research must offer new and useful information to the pool of kn owledge. Not every scientist who 
performs original research that adds to the general pool of knowledge in the field has inheren tly 
made a contribution of "major significance" to th e field as a whole. The petitioner has not 
established that her work has impacted the statistical science field or bioinf orrnatics research 
community in a major way, or that he r work was otherwise commensurate with original contributions 
of major significanc e in the field. 
Dr. 'luther states: 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
In addition, [the petitioner] continues her cutting-e dge research at with developing novel 
statistical methods to identify the enrichment of nuclea r receptors in DNA sequence data. 
Nuclear receptors are a class of proteins found within cells th at are responsible for the 
function of steroid and hormones . By virtue of their abili ties to regulate myriad huma n 
developmental and physiol ogical functions, nuc lear receptors have been implicated in a wide 
rang e of diseases, such as cancer, diabetes, obesity, etc. [The petitioner 's] pioneering 
research contributions indisputably will continue to advance our understanding of human 
diseases necessary for next-generation diagnosis, prevention and th erapy. 
Dr. points out that the petitioner is continuing her research at to develop novel 
statistical methods for identifying the enrichment of nuc lear receptors in DNA sequence data and 
that her work will improve "understanding of hu man diseases nec essary for next-generation 
diagnosis, prevention and ther apy," but he does not provide specific examples of how th e 
petitioner 's original work has already been utilized to ach ieve those effects. Dr. 
speculation about possible future impact of the petitioner 's work is not evidence, and cannot 
establish eligibility for the category of evidenc e at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) . Again, elig ibility must 
be established at the time of filing. 8 C.P.R. § 103 .2(b)(1), (12 ); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 
49. 
Dr . continues: 
[The petitioner 's] frontier research in developing novel statistical methods to identif y joint 
genetic factors for huma n disease was published in (2011 ). is 
an inter nationally renowned journal in research with an impact factor of 
5. 468, and ranked first out of 43 professional journals worldwide in bioi nformatics and 
computational biology. Being highly selective, publishes [sic] only research deemed to be 
techn ically brilliant and of significant practical impor tance . 
Dr. points to the "impact factor" of as evidence of the prestige of that 
journal. The aforementioned "Citation Statistics" report from the 
comments specifically on "impact factor" and states that its validity is "neither well underst ood nor 
well studied." In addition, the report states: 
For journals, the impact factor is most often used for ranking. This is a simple average 
derived from the distribution of citations for a collection of articles in the journal. The 
average captures only a small amount of inform ation about that distribution, and it is a rather 
crude statistic. In additio n, th ere are many confounding factors when judging journals by 
citations, and any comparison of journals requires caution wh en using impact factors. Using 
the impact factor alone to judge a journal is like using weight alone to judge a person's 
hea lth . 
Further more, the article entitled "Assessing research in the mathematical scienc es" states tha t "the 
journal impact factor is not a robust mea sure of a journ al's standi ng." Regardless, with respect 
to the petitioner 's article being published in a reputable journal such as the 
regulations contain a separate criterion regarding the authorship of scholarly articles in professional 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
publications. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5 (h)(3)(vi). In Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Ci r. 
2009), the court held that publications and presentations are not sufficient evidence under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5 (h)(3) (v) absent evidence that they were of "major significance" in the field. In 2010 , t he 
Kazarian court reaffirmed its holding that the AAO did not abuse its discretion in finding that the alien 
had not demonstrated contributions of major significance . 596 F.3d at 1122. Again, there is no 
presumption that every published article or conference presentation is a contribution of major 
significance; rather, the petitione r must document the actual impact of her article or presentation. 
Although the seven citations to her article at the time of filing the Form I-140 petition 
show that the field has taken some interest in the petitione r's work, she has not established that the 
level of citation for the article is indicative of a contribution of major significance in the field. 
In addition, Dr . states: 
[The petition er] received the for research excellence. is the 
acronym for the Fellows Award for Research Excellence, begun in 1995 to provide 
recognition for the outstanding scientific research performed by research fellows.) Only 
exceptionally skilled scientists, identified through a notoriously competitive process, are 
selected to become Research Fellows. Fewer than 25% are honored with 
This reflects recognition and acclaim at the highest level of the profession. Previously in 
2004, [the petitioner] was honored as the only scientist to receive the prestigious 
Fellowship in the statistics department, having made outstanding achiev ements and 
displaying exceptional scien tific talent. 
With regard to comments about the petitioner's we note that the 
petitio ner submitted a document entitled "Training and Mentoring" which states that the 
component of "had 21 winners of " The petiti oner 's name is li sted in the 
document among the 21 individuals identified as award recipients. The document 
further states: 
program was started in 1995 to 
recognize scientif ic excellence among intramural trainees at all 
Trainees submit an abstract of their research, wh ich is peer reviewed. . . . Each winne r 
received a $1000 travel award to attend a meeting in the United States at which they 
presented thei r abstract, eithe r as a poster or a semina r. 
Dr. asserts that "fewer than 25%" of research fellows "are honored with 
Awards."2 The petitio ner, however, has not established that receiving an award limit ed to 
2 According to information posted on the webpage, 
applications are accepted every year in February and March" and "[t]he authors of the 25% of 
abstracts that receive the highest scores are recognized as winners." See 
accessed on October 16, 2014, copy incorporated into the record o f 
proceeding. In addition, according to the ' ' the petitioner was 
among 250 who received that year. See 
accessed on October 16, 2014, copy 
incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
"intramural trainees" and won by a substantial number (250) and percentage of individuals who 
submitted an abstract to the is indicative of a contribution of major signif icance in 
the field. 
Regarding Dr . assertion that the petitioner was honored with a In th e 
statistics department in 2004, the petitioner submitted letters of support from Dr. and Dr. 
confirming her receipt of the given to a "candidate who 
is writing his or her dissertation in the Statistical Science De artment." In addition , the petitioner 
submitted inf ormation from the website of entitled 
"Student Awards." The submitted information states: for Academic 
Excellence is given to two first-year students for outstanding performance in the theory and applied 
portions, respectively, of the first-year curriculum. The first recipients of this award were [the 
petitioner] and " In a precedent decision involving a lesser classificati on 
than the one sought in this matter, we have held that academic performance, measured by such criteria 
as grade point average, is not a specific prior achievement that establishes the alien 's ability to 
benefit the national inter est. In reNew York State Dept of Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215 , 219, n.6 
(Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998). Thus, academic performance is certainly not comparable to the original 
contributions of major significance in the field criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), 
designed to demonstrate an alien's eligibility for this more exclusive classifica tion. The petitioner 
has not established th at receiving academic awar ds limited to statistical science students is 
commensurate with original scientific contribut ions of major significance in the field. 
With regard to the petitioner 's student awards, the regulati ons include a 
separate criterion for prizes or awards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h )(3)(i) .3 Evidence relating to or even 
meeting the prizes and awards criterion is not presumptive evidence that the petitioner also meets this 
criterion. The regulatory criteria are separate and distinct from one another. Because separate 
criteria exist for awards and original contributions of major significance, USCIS clearly does not 
view the two as being interchangeable. To hold otherwise would render meaningless the statutory 
requirement for extensive evidence or the regulatory requirement that a petitioner meet at least three 
separate criteria. 
Dr. Professor of Genetic Epi demiology and Bioinf ormatics, 
United Kingdom, states: 
[The petitioner] successfully developed novel statistical/computational approaches to unravel 
the co-existence of multiple genetic factors directly related to terminal diseases. Her method 
3 On appeal, the petitioner does not claim to meet the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). Even 
if the petitioner had made such a claim, which she has not, the petitioner did not submit evidence 
demonstrating the national or international recognition of her particular awards. The plain language of the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) specifically requires that the petitioner's awards be nationally or 
internationally recognized in the field of endeavor. There is no documentary evidence demonstrating that the 
petitioner's award and student awards were recognized beyond the presenting institutions at 
a level commensurate with nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the 
field. Rather, the petitioner's awards reflect internal recognition limited to research fellows at or students 
in the statistical science program at 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
is the first to estimate the joint distribution of multiple transcription factors and at the mean 
time, noise rate of the dataset. [The petitio ner's] novel method has provided scientists with 
key information needed for data collection and enhancement of scientific discovery. Even 
more important , [the petition er] developed this method into a software package, published at 
· - · Compared with 
other available methods/tools, her method is far superior in both practical effectiveness and 
computational efficiency in iden tifying multiple transcription factors simultaneous ly. Most 
other tools for analyzing DNA sequence data are not suitable for large sized data , and usual ly 
the analysis results are obscure and incom plete. 
Dr. comments that the petitioner worked on "novel statistical/computational approaches to 
unravel the co-existence of multiple genetic factors directly related to terminal diseases" and that she 
developed a method for iden tifying multiple transcr iption factors simultane ously . The petitioner 
submitted the webpage that provides download information for the petition er's software 
program The petition er, however, has not established that availability of her software on 
the website along with numerous other biostatistics software programs constitutes a 
contribution of major signif icance in the field. Th ere is no documentary eviden ce showing that the 
petitioner 's software has affected the field of in a major way, has been widely utilized as a 
successful approach for identifying multiple transcription factors of various human diseases, or has 
otherwise risen to the level of a contribution of maj or significance in the field. 
Dr . further states: "[The petition er] has made presentations and published two conference 
abstracts at the Joint Statistical Meeti ng, the largest international conference of the statistics 
community with more than five thousand attendees from more than thirty countries world wide." 
With regard to the petitioner 's conference presentations, many professional fields regularly hold 
meetings and conferences to present new work, discuss new findings, and to network with other 
professionals. Professional associations , educational institutions, employers, and government 
agencies promote and sponsor these meetings and conferences. Participation in such events, 
however, does not equate to original contributions of major significance in the field. There is no 
documentary evidence showing that the petitioner 's presented work has been heavily cited, has 
significantly impacted the field as a whole, or otherwise constitutes an original c on tribution of major 
significance in the field. 
Dr. continues: 
Now, [the petitio ner] is conducting frontier research in developing a novel statistical method 
to estimate the distribution of the onset of human diseases or drug effects with association to 
human genes or environmental factors. It is well know[ n] that the use of genetic factors in 
making medicinal decision and practices for the individual patie nt, so-called personal ized 
medicine, will be the future of medicine. [The petitioner 's] current research well fits into this 
area and can significantly facilitate the prediction of the onset of a disease or drug effect for 
each individual patient based on his genes. This pioneering research work will be presented 
at the 2nd International Conference and Exhibition on Biometrics and Bio statistics by the 
for a[ n] oral present ation. [The petitioner 's] work is at the very front of this 
new paradigm in medical research; ba sed upon her stunning record of achievements, if she is 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
able to continue her research in the U.S., she can surely make more major break-through 
directly ben efitting the health care of U.S. 
Dr. mentions that the petitioner's work "can significantly facilitate the prediction of the onset 
of a disease or drug effect for each individual patient based on his genes," but he does not point to 
specific examples of how the petitioner 's work has already been successfully utilized by a significant 
number of medical centers. Again, speculation about possible future impact of the petitio ner's work 
is not eviden ce, and cannot establish eligibility for this regulatory criterion. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1), 
(12 ); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. In addition, while Dr. comments on the 
petitioner's presentation at the 2nd International Conference and Exhibition on Biometrics and 
Biostatistics, there is no evidence showing that the petitioner's work has affected her field in a major 
way, that her statistical method for estimating the onset of disease and for predicting drug effects 
associated with human genes or environmental factors has been widely implemented in the heal thcare 
industry, or that her work has otherwise risen to the level of original contributions of major 
significance in the field. 
Dr. . Professor, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, ' 
states: 
[The petitioner ], first as a Research Fellow at , Biosta tistics Branch, and then as a 
Research Scientist at t , Statistical Genome Unit, has led several research projects 
funded by the U.S. federal government. Among these, [the petitioner ] led a project in which 
she developed a unique approach to ident ify multiple gene-regulation factors simultaneously 
from large-scaled DNA sequence data. This was a landmark accomplishment in the field 
because it enabled biologists for the first time to identify the joint effect of multiple genetic 
factors causing human diseases. No other computational tools in existence can iden tify the 
coregulation of multiple genetic factors, and so [the petitioner]'s work was revolutionar y in 
the field. 
In additional novel contr ibutions of major significance, [the petitioner ] used this pioneering 
algorithm and discovered the co-existence of multiple factors for gene regulation suc h as 
which are significantly related to liver disease. Her results have 
proven to be instrumental for biologists in understanding the joint effect of these factors for 
liver disease such as liver cancer (one of the two cancers with the highest mortality rates) and 
other human diseases. It is of practical significance to identify those genetic factors for 
predicting disease and develop gene-therapy solutions for people with those diseases. For this 
extraordinary work she was honored with the award for ma king fundamenta l 
research contributions. 
Dr. asserts that the petitioner "developed a unique approach to iden tify multiple gene-regulation 
factors simultaneously from large-scaled DNA sequence data" and that she used her method to 
discover "the co-existence of multiple factors for gene regulation such as 
which are si gnificantly related to liver disease," but he does not provide specific examples of how 
the petitione r's methodology has been implemented as a diagnostic or treatment protocol for liver 
disease with corresponding improvement in patient outcomes, or was otherwise indic ative of 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
contributions of major significance in the field. In addition , Dr. mentions that the petitioner 
"was honored with the award" for her research contribution. The plain language of the 
regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires that the petitioner' s contributions be "of major 
significance in the field" rather than limited to an "in tramural trainee" recogni tion program at her 
research institution . See Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F.Supp.3d at 134 (D .D.C. 2013) (uphol ding a finding 
that a ballroom dancer had not met this criterion because she did not demonstrate her impact in the field 
as a whole). 
Dr. further states: 
In additional scientific contributions of ma jor significance to her field, [the petitio ner] 
developed several highly novel statistical methods for filtering time series data that contain 
multiple component s with nonaligned irregular frequencies of beha vior. Despite efforts by 
other leading experts over quite along time, no one ever before had overcome the complex 
challenges for these important achievements. The solutions [the petitioner ] devised and 
developed are extraordinary, and have flexibility and mathematical power that, without 
exception , far exceeds all other filtering methods. These, too are novel scientific 
contributions of major consequence to the field. Her methods have been used to filter 
components from bat echolocation data - research important for enhancing radar navigation 
systems, and have been used to filter components from complex seismic data to study 
earthquakes . 
Dr. describes the petition er's research work as "scientific contributions of major signif icanc e to 
her field" and asserts that her solutions "are extraordinary," but merely repeating the la nguage of the 
statute or regulations does not satisfy the petition er's burden of proof. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 
724 F. Supp. 11 03, 11 08 (E.D.N .Y. 198 9), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr Associates, Inc. 
v. Meissner, No. 95 civ 10 729, 1997 WL 188 942 at *1, *5 (S.D. N.Y.). In addition, Dr. points to 
the petition er's development of "novel statistical methods for filtering time series data that cont ain 
multiple components with nonaligned irregular frequencies of behavior." There is no documentary 
evidence showing, how ever, that the petiti oner's methodologies for filtering time series data have 
been frequently cited by inde penden t researchers or tha t her approac h es were otherwise of major 
significance in the field. 
Dr. , Associate Professor of Medicine and Director of the 
School of Medicine, states: 
[The petition er] developed new and innovative statistical methods to iden tify the joint effect 
of multiple genetic factors relating to human disease, and her contributions create the ability 
to start with large-scale DNA sequence data associated with human disease and detect and 
discover coregulation by multiple transcription factors. In this way, the novel statistical and 
computational approaches she developed reveal the co-existence of multiple genetic factors 
directly related to diseases. Her methodology is the first ever to iden tify multiple interact ing 
transcription factors from la rge-scale DNA data and this is a breakthrough of major 
significance for understanding genetic causes of human disease. 
at 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 14 
Dr. comments that the petitioner 's statistical methods "reveal the co-existence of multiple 
genetic factors directly related to diseases" and that her work "is the first ever to identify multiple 
interacting transcrip tion factors from large-scale DNA data," but he does not provide specific 
examples of how the petiti oner 's work has been widely implemented as an effective approach for 
diagnosing or treating diseases, or has otherwise been of major signif icance to the field. In addition, 
Dr. asserts that the petition er's methodology "is a breakthrough of major significance for 
understanding genetic causes of human disease." USCIS, however, need not rely on unsubsta ntiated 
claims. See 1756, Inc. v. US. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D .C. 1990) (holding that an agency 
need not credit conclusory assertions in immigration benefits adjudi cations). 
Dr. further states: 
In a scien tific contribution of major signif icance to her field, [the petitio ner] developed 
multiple novel statistical methods for filtering time series data containing multiple 
components for which the frequency behaviors vary with time - that is, her methods 
accurately take into account complex irregular frequencies of behavior. In doing so, she 
overcame long standing challenges that stumped other highly skilled experts in her field for 
many years, and both the flexibility and power of her new methods are extraordina ry, 
surpassing by far those of all other filtering methods ever invented. Unquest ionably, her 
novel methods are a breakthrough of major significance. 
Dr. mentions twice that the petitioner 's novel statistical methods for filtering time series data 
are "of major signif icance" in the field. Again, merely repeating the language of the regulations 
does not satisfy the petition er's burden of proof. There is no evidence showing that the petitione r's 
work on filtering time series data has been heavily cited in professional journals, has substantially 
influenced the work of others in her field, or has otherwise risen to the level of contri butions of 
major significance in the field. 
Dr. continues: 
[The petitioner' s] achievements as well as her ongoing work- developing statistical methods 
to estimate the distribution of human disease onset and drug effects in relation to both hu man 
genes and environmental factors- are at the very forefront of "personalized medicine." [The 
petitioner 's] research is first ever to study the association of the onset of medical treatment 
with patients' personal information and clearly distinguish her as a giant in her field, among 
the elite small percent of experts at the very top of her field. 
The pi oneering and novel statistical methods fthe petitio ner] developed have been applied by 
in a famous study known as the . 
which is the largest and longest study ever conducted to 
evaluate depression treatment. In the Study, the determined which 
treatments work best for patients in outpatient settings who suffer from non-psychotic major 
depressive disorders. This successful study has been influencing clinical practices nati onwide 
and has provided and improved strategies to efficiently reduce depression symptoms and 
improve remission for clinical treatment to pa tients suffering from these disorders. [The 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 15 
petitioner 's] research contributions were indispensable for evaluating the associations of the 
onset of the effect of the antidepressant drug citolopram with patients' age, gender and 
anxiety status. In this way her work has a direct influence on customizing the dosage of this 
drug to individual patients from different age and sex groups and also patients with 
complexity of the coexistence of anxiety and depression. 
Dr. comments that the petitioner 's statistical methods were applied by her research institut ion, 
the in a study known as but there is no documentary evidence showing that the 
petitioner was a coauthor of the study, that her specific findings were heavily cited by 
independent researchers, or that her work was otherwise of major signif icance to the field. In 
addition, Dr. asserts that the petiti oner's "research contrib utions were indispensable for 
evaluating the associations of the onset of the effect of the antidepressant drug citalopram" and that 
"her work has a direct influence on customizing the dosage of this drug to individual patients ." Dr. 
however, does not identify examples of any medical centers whose diagnostic and treatment 
protocols have specifically changed as a result of the petitioner 's work, or point to other evidence 
demonstrating that the petitioner 's work is commensurate with contrib utions of major significa nce in 
the field. 
Dr. 
states: 
Professor, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, 
(The petitioner] has played a leading role in developing innovative statistical methods for 
filtering time series data containing multiple components, of which frequency beha vior vary 
with time .... Developing an appropriate filtering method for data with irregular frequency 
behavior has been a very challenging and difficult subject in signal processing area. [The 
petitioner] developed a filtering method for non-st ationary signals based on time- deformation 
concept, which can filter not only the data where frequency can be modeled by available 
functions, but also those with complicated and irregular frequency behavior. In the 
groundbreaking and technically brilliant method she developed, dependence upon the exact 
frequency structure of the component is much less stringent. The flexibility and power of her 
new method is extraordin ary, significantly surpassing that of all other filtering methods ever 
invented. 
Her research is a major breakthrough and a long-sought key to solve the filtering problem for 
data with irregular and complicated frequency behavior. This method has been successfully 
applied to seismic waves and bat echolocation data. . . . Based upon the very nature of the 
novel method [the petitioner] devised, it can be used efficiently to analyze medical data such 
as ultrasound and EEG signals of human brain, acoustic signals, and optical data. Thus, the 
results of [the petitioner's] work are [sic] of fundamental importance to the research in many 
applied fields such as medical, electrical engineering, biology, national defense and national 
disaster prevention. 
Dr. asserts that the petition er's filtering method for non-stationary signals has been successfully 
applied to seismic waves and bat echolocation data, but he does not iden tify the other research 
institutions that have applied the petitioner 's method in their work. There is no documentary. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 16 
evidence showing that other scientists are utilizing the petiti oner's methodology at a level indicative 
of a contribution of major significance in the field. In addition, Dr. contends that the petition er's 
method "can be used efficiently to analyze medical data such as ultrasound and EEG signals of 
human brain, acoustic signals, and optical data," but he does not provide specific examples of how 
the petitio ner's work has already had this effect or was otherwise of major signif icance to the field. 
A petitioner cannot establish eligibility based solely on the expectation of future eligibi lity. Matter 
of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. Moreover, there is no documentary eviden ce showing that "ap plied 
fields such as medical, electrical enginee ring, biology, national defense and national disaster 
prevention" have already utilized the petition er's filtering method at a level commensurate with 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
The petitioner submitted letters of varying probative value. We have addressed the specific assertions 
above. Generalized conclusory assertions that do not identify specific contributions or their impact in 
the field have little probative value. See 17 56, Inc. v. US. Att'y Gen. , 745 F. Supp. at 17; see also 
Visinscaia, 4 F.Supp.3d at 134-35 (upholding USCIS' decision to give limited weight to 
uncorroborated assertions from practitioners in the field); Matter of Caron Int 'l, Inc. , 19 I&N Dec. 
791, 795 (Comm 'r 19 88) (holding that an agency "may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions 
statements ... submitted in evidence as expert testimony," but is ultimately responsible for making 
the final determination regarding an ali en's eligibility for the benefit sought and "is not required to 
accept or may give less weight" to evidence that is "in any way questionable") . The submission of 
reference letters supporting the petition is not presumptive eviden ce of eligib ility; USCIS may 
evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the petition er's eligibility. !d. See 
also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does 
not purport to be evidence as to "fact") . Without additio nal, specific evidence showing that the 
petiti oner's original work has been unusually influential, widely implemented throughout he r field, 
or has otherwise risen to the level of contributions of major significance, the petitioner has not 
established that she meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorshi p of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
The petitioner has documented her authorship of scholarly articles in professional publications and, 
thus, has submitted qualifying evidence pursuant to 8 C.P.R. § 204.5 (h)(3)(vi). Accordin gly, the 
evidence supports the director's finding that the petitioner meets this regulatory criterion. 
B. Summary 
For the reasons discussed above, we agree with the Director that the petitioner has not submitted the 
requisite initial evidence, in this case, evidence that satisfies three of the ten regulatory criteria. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the alien has achiev ed sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage 
who has risen to the very top of his or her field of endeavor. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 17 
Had the petitioner submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary categori es, in 
accordance with the Kazarian opinion , the next step would be a final merits determina tion that 
considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demons trated: (1) a 
"level of expertise indica ting that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the 
very top of the field of endea vor," and (2) "that the alien has sustained national or in ternat ional 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of experti se." 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5 (h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 11 19-20. As the petitioner has not done so, the 
proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of 
presenting evidence that satisfied the initial evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3) 
and (4). Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 11 22. Nevertheless, although we need not provide the type of final 
merits determination referenced in Kazarian, a review of the evidence in the aggregate supports a 
finding that the petitioner has not demonstrated the level of expertise required for the classification 
sought.4 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner 's burden to 
establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 13 61; 
Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 20 13). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4 We maintain de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. United States Dep 't of Justice, 
381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). In any future proceeding, we maintain the jurisdiction to conduct a final 
merits determination as the office that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a )(1)( ii); see 
also INA §§ 103(a)( l), 204(b); DHS Delegation Number 01 50. 1 (effective March 1, 2003); 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 
(2003); 8 C.F.R. § 103 .1 (f)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of Aurelio, 19 I&N Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987) (holding that 
legacy INS, now USCIS, is the sole authority with the jur isdiction to decide visa petitio ns).