dismissed EB-1A Case: Bioinorganic Chemistry

PUBLIC COPY 
dentif' data deleted lo 
prevent dearly unwama&d 
~nof personal privsfg '---. - 
U.S. Department of Hon~eland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: WAC 04 11 1 50674 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: OCT 2 1 2005 
PETITION: Immigrant ~etitlon 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 
L 
INSTRUCTlONS : 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been reizurned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
V 2~obert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 04 11 1 50674 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, California Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 9 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability in the 
sciences. The director determined that the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international 
acclaim requisite to classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
(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. 
Specific supporting evidence must accompany the petition to document the "sustained national or international 
acclaim" that the statute requires. 8 C.F.R. €j 204.5(h)(3). An alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a "one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized 
award)." Id. Absent such an award, an alien can establish the necessary sustained acclaim by meetin!: at least 
three of ten other regulatory criteria. Id. However, the weight given to evidence submitted to fulfill the criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3), or under 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(4), must depend on the extent to which such evidence 
demonstrates, reflects, or is consistent with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the 
alien's field of endeavor. A lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory dt:finition 
of "extraordinary ability" as "a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage 
who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(2). 
In this case, the petitioner seeks classification as an alien with extraordinary ability in the sciences, specifically 
in the field of bioinorganic chemistry. The record indicates that at the time of filing the petitioner was en~ployed 
as a postdoctoral researcher at the University of California, Davis. The petitioner submitted supporting 
documents including copies of his co-authored articles, conference abstracts, and three letters of 
recommendation. On appeal, the petitioner submits a letter and additional evidence, much of which we cannot 
consider because it arose after the petition was filed. The petitioner must establish eligbility at the time of 
filing; a petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligble under a new set of 
facts. See 8 C.F.R. 15 103.2(b)(12), Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Comm. 1971). The petitioner's 
WAC 04 11 1 50674 
Page 3 
claims and the remaining evidence submitted on appeal do not overcome the deficiencies of the petition and the 
appeal will be dismissed. We address the evidence submitted and the petitioner's contentions in the following 
discussion of the regulatory criteria relevant to the petitioner's case. 
(i) Documentation of the alien S receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards 
for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted evidence that he received a Fellowship from Michigan State 
University for the summer semester of 1996. The director noted that fellowships "are generally awarded to 
support future research rather than to recognize past excellence in the field of endeavor." On appeal, the 
petitioner contends that his fellowship was awarded based on his "past performance, which can be quantified in 
terms of grades and past research progress. Hence, I believe I meet this criterion." The petitioner is misguided 
in two aspects. First, the record contains no evidence that his fellowship was awarded based on his past 
performance. The submitted letter simply informs the petitioner of his fellowship award and does not state the 
basis or eligibility criteria for the fellowship. Simply going on record without supporting documentary evidence 
is not sufficient to meet the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 
(Cornm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft ofCalifornia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Cornm. 1972)). Second, 
fellowships and scholarships awarded to support academic study do not meet this criterion because, while they 
may be competitive and prestigous, such forms of financial aid are only available and granted to students - not 
established professionals - to further their academic training. They are not equivalent to nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in a given field. Accordingly, the petitioner does not 
meet this criterion. 
(iv) Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others 
in the same or an alliedfield of speciJication for which classzfication is sought. 
The petitioner claims to meet this criterion because he was a teaching assistant while pursuing his doctoral 
degree at Michigan State University. However, duties or activities which nominally fall under a given 
regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3) do not demonstrate national or international acclaim if they are 
inherent or routine in the occupation itself, or in a substantial proportion of positions withn that occupation. 
The petitioner submitted no evidence that he has judged of the work of other scientists in his field in a manner 
significantly outside the general duties of his graduate teaching assistantship and reflective of national or 
intemational acclaim. Accordingly, he does not meet this criterion. 
(v) Evidence of the alien 's original scientzjk, scholar[v, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of 
major signzjkance in the field. 
As evidence under this criterion, the petitioner cites three recommendation letters written by his current ;md past 
supervisors and a former colleague. While such letters provide relevant information about an alien's experience 
and accomplishments, they cannot by themselves establish the alien's eligibility under this criterion because 
they do not demonstrate that the alien's work is of major significance in his field beyond the limited number of 
individuals with whom he has worked directly. Even when written by independent experts, letters solicited by 
an alien in support of an immigration petition cany less weight than preexisting, independent evidence of major 
contributions that one would expect of an alien who has sustained national or intemational acclaim. 
Accordingly, we review the letters as they relate to other evidence of the petitioner's contributions. 

WAC 04 1 11 50674 
Page 5 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
Frequent publication of research findings is inherent to success as an established scientist arid does not 
necessarily indicate the sustained acclaim requisite to classification as an alien with extraordinary ability. 
Evidence of publications must be accompanied by documentation of consistent citation by independent experts 
or other proof that the alien's publications have had a significant impact in his field. In this case, the director 
found the petitioner met this criterion because "the petitioner's work, as reflected in his published articles, has 
been cited." However, as noted above under the fifth criterion, the record is devoid of any evidence that the 
petitioner's work has been cited in the publications of other scientists. The petitioner submitted evidence that, at 
the time of filing, he had co-authored three articles and one abstract published in reputable scientific journals. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits evidence of two additional articles that we cannot consider because the articles 
were published after the petition was filed. The petitioner must establish eligbility at the time of filing; a 
petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligble under a new set of facts. See 8 
C.F.R. $ 103.2(b)(12), Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. The petitioner's minimal publication record arid the lack 
of any published citations of the petitioner's work are inconsistent with the requisite sustainetl acclaim. 
Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or estat?lishments 
that have a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner claims to meet this criterion through his work as a graduate student at MSU and his  stdo doctoral 
research at the University of ~alifornia Although the letters of Professorsanaattest to 
the value of the petitioner's work to their individual laboratories, neither letter demonstrates that the :petitioner 
performed a leading or critical role for MSU or the University of ~alifornia as a whole. On appeal, the 
petitioner submits evidence regarding a grant proposal submitted by Professor and listing the 
petitioner as one of the key personnel involved in the proposed research. We cannot consider this evidence 
because it arose after the petition was filed. Again, the petitioner must establish eligbility at the time of filing. 
Id. Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
An immigrant visa will be granted to an alien under section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1153(b)(l)(A), 
only if the alien can establish extraordinary ability through extensive documentation of sustained narional or 
international acclaim demonstrating that the alien has risen to the very top of his or her field. The record in this 
case does not establish that the petitioner has achieved sustained national or international acclaim as a scientist 
placing him at the very top of his field. He is thus ineligtble for classification as an alien with extraordinary 
ability pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A), and his petition may not be 
approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. $ 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.