dismissed EB-1A Case: Biological Science

US. Department of Homeland Security 
identifying data deleted to 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Of$ce of Administrative Appeals 
prevent clearly unwamted 
 Washington, Dc 20529-2090 
hv~ion of personal privacy 
 U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
COPY 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
LIN 08 028 52068 
 SEP 0 2 2009 
IN RE: 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. !j 1 153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. !j 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. !j 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
uohn F. Grissom 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in the sciences, pursuant to 
section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 11 53(b)(l)(A). The 
director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim 
necessary to qualiij for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a personal statement and additional evidence. For the reasons 
discussed below, while we find that the petitioner meets two of the regulatory criteria, 8 C.F.R. 
fj 204.5(h)(3)(v) and (vi) (relating to contributions of major significance and scholarly articles), of 
which an alien must meet at least three, we uphold the director's conclusion that the petitioner has not 
established her eligibility for the exclusive classification sought. 
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 
individuals seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898- 
9 (Nov. 29, 1991). As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of expertise 
indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field 
of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). The specific requirements for supporting documents to establish 
that an alien has sustained national or international acclaim and recognition in his or her field of 
expertise are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be 
addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that she has sustained 
national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition seeks to classi@ the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as a postdoctoral 
fellow. Postdoctoral positions are temporary training positions that allow a biological scientist to 
accrue the publication record required for a permanent position. See 
http://www.bls.~ov/oco/ocos047.htm#training (accessed August 6, 2009 and incorporated into the 
record of proceeding). While an entry-level training position does not preclude eligibility, it is the 
petitioner's burden to demonstrate that she compares with those at the very top of her field, including 
the most experienced and renowned members of that field. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5@)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international 
recognized award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, at 
least three of which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualifl 
as an alien of extraordinary ability. The petitioner has submitted evidence that, she claims, meets the 
following criteria under 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). ' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awardsfor excellence in thejeld of endeavor. 
Initially, the petitioner submitted evidence that she received a 2003 Asia/Pacific Travel Award to 
support her attendance at a Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) conference. 
The petitioner submitted materials from SETAC's website, www.setac.org, discussing its awards 
designed to "recognize and honor outstanding contributions." The specific awards discussed on this 
page include the Global Founders Award and Rachel Carson Award, neither of which the petitioner 
received, and regional awards designed to "support the development and participation of students" and 
"the vrofessional and technical contributions of its rerrular members." The record includes a Se~tember 
25, i007 letter fiom 
 President ofS~~~~ Global (2004), who states that tge travel 
awards are limited to those within seven years of obtaining their Ph.D. 
The petitioner also documented another travel award in 2000 from the Council of Scientific and 
Industrial Research (CSIR) in India. The petitioner submitted documentation fiom CSIR's website, 
www.csir.res.in, regarding the council's distinguished reputation that fails to address the criteria for 
awarding travel awards. The petitioner documented a third travel grant in 1998 fiom the organizing 
committee of the Third International Symposium on Aquatic Animal Health. In 1999, the petitioner 
received a Best Research Paper Presenter at the 1999 20~ Annual Session of the Academy of 
Environmental Biology organized by Andhra University where the petitioner was a Ph.D. student at the 
time. The petitioner also received a 1998 Best Presentation certificate at a workshop held at Bangalore 
University and a 1997 Best Poster Presentation at the National Symposium on Coastal and Estuarine 
The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
Process Around India at Andhra University. In addition, the petitioner received a Best Paper Presenter 
award at the International Seminar on Mangroves, Division of Marine Biology, Department of Zoology, 
Andhra University. Finally, the petitioner submitted a letter confirming her second rank on the Ph.D. 
entrance examination for Andhra University in 1996. 
On June 3, 2003, the director issued a request for additional evidence (RFE). Specifically, the director 
requested evidence as to the significance of the above awards, including their scope, the requirements 
to compete and the selection criteria. In response, counsel discusses the materials fiom SETAC's 
website submitted initially and asserts that the remaining awards are lesser nationally recognized 
awards. The petitioner submits a letter fiom 
 Executive Director of SETAC North 
America, that discusses the petitioner's SETAC membership but not the significance of travel awards 
issued by SETAC. 
The director noted that the petitioner had only submitted evidence regarding the SETAC travel award, 
which is limited to those without extensive experience, and concluded that the petitioner had not 
demonstrated that the above awards are consistent with national or international acclaim. In his 
extensive analysis, the director included a single sentence stating that travel awards and best paper 
awards are "routinely awarded." On appeal, the petitioner questions how the director determined which 
awards are "routinely awarded" and asserts that even the Nobel Prize is "routinely awarded." The 
petitioner concludes that the conferences where the petitioner was recognized were national; thus, the 
recognition must constitute lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards. The 
petitioner submits promotional material for a 2007 conference organized by the Academy of 
Environmental Biology at Ch. Charan Singh University. The press release announcing the 2007 
awardees lists the best poster presentation award last, after recognition for lifetime achievements, the 
Archana Gold Medal, the Devaki Dutta Medal, the academy's commendation certificate, the several 
fellows of the academy and even the young investigator award. 
The SETAC travel award is limited to those without extensive experience. As the most experienced 
and renowned members of the field do not compete for this award, we cannot conclude that it is 
indicative of or consistent with national or international acclaim. While the other conferences for 
which the petitioner received travel awards may be national in scope, it does not necessarily follow that 
their travel awards are nationally or internationally recognized. The petitioner did not submit any 
evidence suggesting that the most experienced and renowned members aspire to win travel awards to 
attend these conferences. 
The materials submitted on appeal demonstrate that the Academy of Environmental Biology solicits 
submissions to its conferences nationally. Best presentation awards, however, are limited to conference 
attendees at a single conference. While the conference issues a press release announcing its awardees, 
the record lacks evidence that journalists in the trade or general media cover the selection of awardees. 
We are not persuaded that best presentation awards issued by conference organizers are indicative of or 
consistent with national or international acclaim. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not demonstrated that she meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the jeld for which classijkation is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national 
or international experts in their disciplines or$elds. 
Counsel initially claimed that the petitioner is an honorary/emeritus member of SETAC. 
 The 
unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter ofobaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 
534 ;:2 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1 
 1983); Matter of Ramirez- 
Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503,506 (BIA 1980). The letter from 
 confirms only that 
the petitioner has been a member since 2004. In a separate letter, 
 indicates that the 
petitioner's membership was granted as part of the AsialPacific Travel Award. In his RFE, the director 
requested the membership requirements for SETAC. 
In response, the petitioner submitted a new letter fro- asserting that the petitioner "was 
awarded honorarytEmeritus membership based on her extraordinary discoveries." He explains that 
SETAC members are admitted based on educational qualifications, professional activities and 
accomplishments in the field of environmental toxicology. Specifically, "SETAC selects 
honoraryEmeritus members based on the above criteria and SETAC honoraryEmeritus members are 
[the] top few professionals in the field of environmental sciences." The petitioner also provided a list 
of the membership categories from SETAC's website. While Emeritus is the highest level of 
membership, the information states only that they are selected and recognized on the basis of 
contributions to SETAC and the environmental sciences. The list does not include 
"honoraryEmeritus" members and the petitioner has not established that this category is the same as 
"Emeritus." 
The director concluded that the petitioner had not submitted evidence of his membership rank in 
SETAC as of the filing date and that the materials for SETAC did not demonstrate that SETAC 
requires outstanding achievements of its members. On appeal, the petitioner asserts that while the 
phrase "outstanding achievements" is not used by SETAC in regards to Emeritus membership, the fact 
that Emeritus is the highest rank sufficiently demonstrates that outstanding achievements are required. 
The petitioner does not address the director's concerns that the record does not establish that the 
petitioner was an Emeritus member at the time of filing, the date as of which the petitioner must 
establish her eligibility. See 8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 
(Reg'l. Comm'r. 1971 . The record does not contain a copy of the petitioner's membership card. The 
initial letter fro makes no mention of the petitioner's alleged Emeritus rank. Even if we 
assume that "honoraryEmeritus" rank is the same as "Emeritus" rank, only asserts that the 
petitioner obtained this rank in his letter that postdates the filing of the appeal. 
Finally, we will not presume that the highest membership rank necessarily requires outstanding 
achievements. It is the petitioner's burden to demonstrate the actual requirements. The petitioner did 
not submit the constitution, bylaws or other official SETAC materials confirming the actual 
requirements for Emeritus membership or the process of selection. Thus, the petitioner has also failed 
to establish that Emeritus members are nominated, selected or confirmed by recognized national or 
international experts. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in the Jield for which classiJication is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
Initially, the petitioner submitted a letter from 
 Press Relations Officer for Andhra 
University, asserting that, according to a press release the etitioner's research achievements at that 
university were published in Eenadu and The Hindu. I) further asserts that the petitioner was 
also featured on local news channels. The petitioner also submitted an undated "brief' in The Indian 
Express, Visakhapatnam announcing the petitioner's invitation to attend a conference in Baltimore, 
Maryland and two foreign language briefs with no accompanying certified translation as required under 
8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3)(iii) and 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). Finally, the petitioner submitted evidence that 
her articles have been cited. 
In the RFE, the director noted that mere inclusion in footnotes could not serve to meet this criterion. 
The director requested translations for the foreign language briefs and the dates for any of the submitted 
news briefs. The director also requested evidence of the circulation or distribution for the publications 
covering the petitioner. 
In response, the petitioner submitted a letter fiom 
 Bureau Chief of The New Indian 
Ex ress advising that the paper published the previously submitted English language brief in 1998. 
b further asserts that the newspaper is "one of the leading news paper [sic] in India and 
among the top 100 in the world (press release network survey)." He concludes that the paper publishes 
highly important and only nationally recognizable evidence and is distributed all over India. The 
petitioner also submitted materials about Express Publications, which publishes The New Indian 
Express, formerly The Indian Express, that lists 14 publication centers throughout India but does not 
provide the circulation or distribution of The New Indian Express. Other information about the 
publication submitted by the petitioner, however, reveals that it is "one of the most influential 
newspapers of the Indian subcontinent" and has a circulation of 576,200. 
The petitioner included a certified translation of the 1998 brief in Vaartha and a letter from - 
a staff reporter for Vaartha, advising that the newspaper is a leading newspaper in Telugu, 
the regional language of Andhra Pradesh, that publishes "original nationally recognizable events only." 
The petitioner also submitted Internet materials indicating that Vaartha is the second largest 
publication in Telugu. Similarly, the petitioner submitted a certified translation from the 1998 brief in 
Andhra Bhoomi. sub-editor of this newspaper asserts that it publishes only "original 
nationally recognizable news." 
 A listing of news publications in India from www.mediaware- 
infotech.com/newsletter/nl print.htm, submitted by the petitioner, lists Vaartha as third and Andhra 
Bhoomi as fourth among the top regional language dailies in the Andhra Pradesh region. Like the 
English news brief in The Indian Express, the Telugu publications report the petitioner's invitation to 
attend the Maryland conference. The brief in Vaartha lists no author and obtained its information from 
Andhra University's press office and the brief in Andhra Bhoomi is credited to the Andhra University 
"Campus Reporter." 
The director concluded that such brief mentions could not serve to meet this criterion, that the two 
Telugu publications were local and that the page in The Indian Express included the name of a city in 
Andhra Pradesh, suggesting a local edition. 
The petitioner does not challenge the director's conclusions on appeal. We concur with the director. 
At least two of the publications are local publications and the brief in The Indian Express appears to 
have been located in a local section or edition. Without additional evidence that these stories were 
nationally circulated or other evidence of the significance of these publications, the petitioner cannot 
establish that these publications constitute professional or major trade journals or other major media. 
Moreover, the coverage in two of these publications appears to result from a press release from the 
petitioner's own university rather than independent journalistic coverage. We further concur with the 
director that these brief mentions are not the type of coverage that are indicative of or consistent with 
national or international acclaim. Finally, coverage from 1998 is not indicative of sustained acclaim in 
2007 when the petition was filed. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an alliedfield of speclJication for which classlJication is sought. 
The petitioner submitted 2001 and 2002 letters from 
 inviting the petitioner to review 
manuscripts for the aquatic toxicology and ecotoxicology section of Trends in L$? Sciences. The 
- - 
petitione; was also requested to review a manuscript for the Journal of ~nvironmental Biology and the 
Journal of Applied Aquaculture in 2002 and 2003. The petitioner also submitted a July 21,2003 letter 
from the Dean for Research and Development at the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Mumbai, 
advising the petitioner of her selection as a member of the dissertation committee for a master's 
student. The petitioner was working as a scientist at IIT at the time. In addition, m, 
faculty at the National Institute of Industrial Engineering (NITIE) in Mumbai and a former employee at 
IIT, advises that the petitioner was also invited to be an external examiner for a master's student's 
dissertation at that institute. 
The director requested evidence of any acclaim derived from the above duties. In response, the 
petitioner submitted a letter from Editor of Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 
advising that the petitioner was asked to review manuscripts for this journal and other journals, which 
Page 8 
is "evidence of her acclaim in the field" as "only the top professionals in the field are asked to serve as 
reviewers for top journals." The letter does not suggest that the petitioner reviewed manuscripts for this 
journal prior to the date of filing. In addition, the editor of the Journal of Environmental Biology 
advises that, based on the petitioner's "past sincere critical reviews and top expertise in her research 
field," the journal continues to utilize the petitioner as a reviewer. Internet materials about this journal 
indicate that it is "one of the best research journals of the field, covered by most of the Abstracting and 
Indexing services of the world." 
The director concluded that the petitioner's duties as a reviewer were commensurate with her education 
and experience and that she had not demonstrated that she had garnered any recognition from serving as 
a reviewer. 
On appeal, the petitioner notes that reviewers are anonymous, so no acclaim accrues from these duties. 
The petitioner acknowledges that reviews are performed "as a service to the scientific community." 
The petitioner submits electronic mail correspondence in which Deputy Editor of 
Life Sciences for Science responds to the petitioner's request for how reviewing manuscripts might 
demonstrate acclaim. The first part of 
 response is covered by correction tape but is still 
legible. In the obscured portion, - advises that the petitioner request a statement from the 
journals for which she had reviewed indicating that her work "has increased the success of the scientific 
enterprise and that it is of value to scientific progress." then concludes that she knows of no 
other way to demonstrate the "acclaim" associated with the confidential process of reviewing. Dr. 
placement of "acclaim" in quotes in her response suggests that she is not confirming that 
participating in the process is, in fact, indicative of acclaim. 
The petitioner also submits materials about Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety from 
www.elsevier.com advising that authors should provide the names of five potential reviewers with 
their submission, including three from other countries. This information indicates that the journal is 
interested in obtaining the names of independent reviewers but does not suggest that manuscript review 
is indicative of or consistent with acclaim in the field. By submitting materials from this website, the 
petitioner is effectively adding this website to the record of proceeding. The website also includes a list 
of frequently asked questions for reviewers at 
www.elsevier.com/wps/find/reviewershome.reviewers/faq (accessed August 6, 2009 and incorporated 
into the record of proceeding). The first question is "Why Should I Review?" In the response,- 
states that reviewing manuscripts "is part of belonging to the scientific community." 
The evidence submitted under this criterion, or any criterion, must be indicative of or consistent with 
sustained national or international acclaim. Accord Yasar v. DHS, 2006 WL 778623 *9 (S.D. Tex. 
March 24, 2006); All Pro Cleaning Services v. DOL et al., 2005 WL 4045866 * 11 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 
26, 2005). We cannot ignore that scientific journals are peer reviewed and rely on many scientists to 
review submitted articles. Thus, peer review is routine in the field and, by itself, is not indicative of or 
consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. Without evidence that sets the petitioner 
apart from others in her field, such as evidence that she has reviewed manuscripts for a journal that 
Page 9 
credits a small, elite group of referees, received independent requests from a substantial number of 
journals, or served in an editorial position for a distinguished journal, we cannot conclude that the 
petitioner meets this criterion. 
Finally, while not discussed by the director, we acknowledge the evidence that the petitioner served on 
a dissertation committee for a Master's student at IIT. As stated above, the petitioner was employed at 
IIT at the time. We are not persuaded that serving on a committee at one's own institution is indicative 
of or consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. Even serving as an external reviewer 
at NITIE at the request of a former IIT employee does not demonstrate the petitioner's recognition 
outside of Mumbai. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien S original scientiJic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the fleld. 
The record documents that the petitioner authored several scientific articles and presented her work at 
scientific conferences. She submitted guidelines for the Western Indian Ocean (WIO) Region using her 
work as the basis for safe cadmium, copper, lead and zinc levels for shrimp larvae, evidence of citations 
of this work and letters from members of her field and other individuals. The petitioner also submitted 
additional materials in response to the director's RFE. The director concluded that while the 
petitioner's work was original, she had not provided objective evidence of the petitioner's significant 
impact in the field. On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the director failed to consider the evidence 
submitted. 
The petitioner's field, like most science, is research-driven, and there would be little point in 
publishing research that did not add to the general pool of knowledge in the field. According to the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not only original but of 
major significance. We must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, 
thus, that it has some meaning. To be considered a contribution of major significance in the field of 
science, it can be expected that the results would have already been reproduced and confirmed by 
other experts and applied in their work. Otherwise, it is difficult to gauge the impact of the 
petitioner's work. 
In addition, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3)(vi) provides a separate criterion for scholarly 
articles. As such, scholarly articles cannot also serve as presumptive evidence to meet this criterion 
if the statutory requirement for extensive evidence and the regulatory requirement that an alien meet 
at least three separate criteria are to have any meaning. 
According to the petitioner's Curriculum Vitae, she obtained her Ph.D. from Andhra University in 
2000. She then worked at IIT as a scientist through April 2005. From 2005 through 2007, she worked 
as a scientific advisor to BCR Marine. 
 As of the date of filing, the petitioner was working as 
postdoctoral fellow at the Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU). 
-1 the petitioner's Ph.D. mentor at Andhra University, asserts that 
while studying for her Ph.D., the petitioner "played a key role" in a project funded by the Indian 
Council of ~~ricultural Research (ICAR). 
 During her work on this project, according to Dr. 
the petitioner conducted a survey in the east coast of India, estimating the nutritional 
values in diseased shrimps that are affected by different pathogens and discovering that diseased shrimp 
were using an alternative metabolic pathway to produce and consume nutrients due to stressed 
conditions. 
a principal scientist at IIT, asserts that he oversaw the petitioner's postdoctoral 
research studies at IIT. Specifically, explains that the petitioner developed a lead 
toxicity biomarker (the enzyme ~a', K -ATPase according to other references) pollution indicator, 
using it to calculate the maximum concentration levels (lethal and sub-lethal) for lead without negative 
effects on larval shrimp. fiuther explains that prior to this work, shrimp farmers used 
coastal waters without considering heavy metals because they cannot be separated by filters and are 
only detectable with chemical reactions. According to - the Andhra Pradesh Shrimp 
Seed Research Center recomized the useful nature of the ~etitioner's work and educated and trained 
- 
aqua farms all over India. -her states that the petitioner also discovered that 
contaminated shrimp are recoverable, becoming uncontaminated after being placed in cleanhealthy 
water. According 
 -1 this finding allows shrimp farmers to-detect heavy metals in 
their catches, correct them and, thus, sell them on the international market. 
In response to the director's RFE, the petitioner submitted a letter from 
 a scientific 
officer at ICAR. 
 confirms that the petitioner's work impacted the aquaculture industry in 
India by influencing and improving Indian law. Specifically, 
 explains that the petitioner's 
work was used as a basis for the Coastal Aquaculture Authority Compendium and Guidelines published 
in 2006. lists seven sections of the compendium that are either derived directly from the 
petitioner's work in whole or in part. Some tables in the compendium, according to list 
the specific results from the petitioner's studies. As stated above, the record also contains the Proposed 
WIO Regional Guidelines that cite the petitioner's work for the standards set forth in those guidelines. 
asserts that the petitioner designed waste management strategies and waste water processing 
bioreactors for food, mining and aquaculture industries used in India today. Specifically, according to 
the petitioner used microbes utilizing chlorinated compounds, phosphates, sulphates and 
other chemicals as a goodlenergy source, now utilized by BCR Marine Methods Pvt., Ltd. - 
-. 
further explains that the petitioner designed a two stage process to treat the waste water from  ma 
Foods, one of India's largest bakeries, that uses a bioreactor to neutralize organic materials and a 
second reactor to adsorb dyes and flavors. The record contains letters fiom both BCR Marine Methods 
Pvt., Ltd. and Uma Foods acknowledging their use of the petitioner's designs. 
In addition to the above evidence of the application of the petitioner's work, the petitioner submitted 
several significant citations that do far more than merely acknowledge the petitioner's articles as 
previous work in the field. Specifically, research teams at the Chinese Cultural University in Taiwan, 
National Taiwan University, Zhejiang University in China and Anna University in India all explicitly 
state that their own results were obtained utilizing methods described by the petitioner. 
the petitioner's supervisor at OHSU, asserts that at OHSU, the petitioner "aided in 
the isolation of in situ bacteria that oxidize manganese." While 
 discusses the future 
potential of this work, at issue are the contributions that had already impacted the field as of the date of 
filing. See 8 C.F.R. $8 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Kutigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l. Comm'r. 
1971). Nevertheless, his letter confirms that the petitioner continues to contribute to her field at some 
level. 
In light of the above, we withdraw the director's concern that the record lacked objective evidence of 
the petitioner's impact in the field. Based on the submission of several types of evidence documenting 
the application of the petitioner's work in the aggregate, we find that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the Jield, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
As stated above, the petitioner has authored several published articles and presented her work at 
international conferences for which she has been recognized with travel awards and best presentation 
awards. She also presented evidence that her work is consistently cited, with several research teams 
citing her work as the sole source of the methodology used to obtain their own results. The director 
concluded that the petitioner's publication record was not indicative of or consistent with sustained 
national or international acclaim. On appeal, the petitioner reviews some of the more significant 
citations of her work. 
While we concur with the director that publication alone does not always serve to meet this criterion in 
a field where publication is expected of professionals in the field, we are satisfied that the petitioner's 
publication record is sufficient to meet this criterion. 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage 
who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished herself as a 
researcher to such an extent that she may be said to have achieved sustained national or international 
acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the very top of her field. The evidence indicates that the 
petitioner shows talent as a postdoctoral fellow, but is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements 
set her significantly above almost all others in her field. Therefore, the petitioner has not established 
eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.