dismissed EB-1A Case: Biology

US. Department of Homeland Security 
anti&ina data deleted to 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Semices 
Office of Administrative Appeals MS 2090 
prei &z.l.y 
unwananted Washington, DC 20529-2090 
. pfivacy 
invasion of PtiaS 
 U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
PUBLIC copy 
Services 
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. 9 1153(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. 
8 103.5 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. 
§ 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
I) 
z~ohn F. Grissom 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
Nebraska Service Center. The petition is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
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. 8 1153(b)(l)(A), as an 
alien of extraordinary ability in the sciences. The director determined the petitioner had not 
established the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification 
as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority Workers. - Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified 
immigrants who are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) 
through (C): 
(A) Aliens with Extraordinary Ability. - An alien is described in this 
subparagraph if - 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, 
business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national 
or international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized 
in the field through extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area 
of extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry to the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of expertise indicating that 
the individual is one of that small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor. 8 C.F.R. Ej 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. 8 204.5(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 classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as a 
postdoctoral researcher. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can 
establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement 
(that is, a major, internationally 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 qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. A 
petitioner, however, cannot establish eligibility for this classification merely by submitting 
evidence that simply relates to at least three of the criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3). In 
determining whether the petitioner meets a specific criterion, the evidence itself must be 
evaluated in terms of whether it is indicative of or consistent with sustained national or 
international acclaim. A lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory 
definition 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). 
The petitioner did not claim to meet any of the specific criterion outlined in 8 C.F.R. 8 
204.5(h)(3). However, she submitted documentation that arguably is relevant to the following 
criteria: 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in theJield of endeavor. 
In her response to the director's request for evidence (RFE) dated March 27,2007, the petitioner 
stated that she was awarded the James Norman Dent Award for 2004 "[blased on my excellent 
and distinguished performance during my doctoral period." In an August 11, 2005 letter, Dr. 
Kenan Professor of Biology in the Biology Department at the University of Virginia 
(UVA), stated that as a result of her "outstanding research," the petitioner "was honored" with 
the Dent Award, which is "given yearly to the University of Virginia Biology graduate student 
who shows the most promise for a research career in Developmental Biology andlor 
Endocrinology." 
Nonetheless, the petitioner submitted no documentary evidence to corroborate her receipt of this 
award. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes 
of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 
(Comm. 1 998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 
1972)). Furthermore, academic study is not a field of endeavor, but training for a future field of 
endeavor. As such, academic scholarships and student awards cannot be considered prizes or 
awards in the petitioner's field of endeavor. Moreover, competition for these awards is limited 
to other students, excluding experienced experts. Thus, they cannot establish that a petitioner is 
one of the very few at the top of his field. The petitioner has submitted no evidence that the 
James Norman Dent Award is a nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence in 
her field of endeavor. 
The petitioner also stated that her election to full membership in Sigma Xi is an "honorable 
recognition." However, the petitioner submitted no evidence that membership in Sigma Xi is 
considered to be an award or prize. Additionally, membership in associations is more 
appropriately considered, and will be considered under the criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. 
$ 204.5(h)(3)(ii) discussed below. 
The petitioner has failed to establish that she meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
To demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, the petitioner must show 
that the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for admission to 
membership. Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a given field, 
minimum education or work experience, standardized test scores, grade point average, 
recommendations by colleagues or current members, or payment of dues do not satisfy this 
criterion as such requirements do not constitute outstanding achievements. The overall prestige 
of a given association is not determinative. The issue is membership requirements rather than the 
association's overall reputation. 
As noted above, the petitioner stated that she was a full member of Sigma Xi, "an international 
honor society for research engineers and scientists." On appeal, the petitioner states that the 
director failed to recognize her full membership in Sigma Xi as opposed to a general associate 
membership. 
In an April 23, 2007 letter, 
 Executive Director of Sigma Xi, stated that 
membershiu in the oreanization "is either full or associate based on research uotential or 
demonstrated research.hlembers are not ranked in any way." 
 letter iAdicates that 
Sigma Xi confers full membership on ''those who have demonstrated noteworthy achievements in 
research." These achievements must be evidenced by "publications, patents, written reports or a 
thesis or dissertation, which must be available to the Committee on Admission if requested." A 
noteworthy achievement is not necessarily an outstanding achievement. In fact, the record reveals 
that the societ does not take a particularly strict view of noteworthy achievements. Specifically, 
according tob the ''Committee on Qualifications and Membership interpreted this 
qualification to include primary authorship of two papers." In addition, an earned doctoral degree 
may be substituted for one paper. We cannot conclude that primary authorship of one or two papers 
is an outstanding achievement as required by this criterion. 
The petitioner's curriculum vitae indicates that she is also a member of the Genetic Society of 
America (GSA), the American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB) and the American Association 
for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). The petitioner submitted no documentation regarding 
the membership requirements for the GSA. A copy of a page from the ASCB website submitted 
by the petitioner and accessed on April 10, 2007, indicates that membership in the organization 
is "open to all scientists who have education or research experience in an allied field" and that 
"[flull members should have a Ph.D. or other professional degree" or an "equivalent experience 
in scientific research." The petitioner also submitted a copy of a page from the AAAS website, 
accessed on April 13, 2007, indicates that membership in the organization is "[olpen to all." 
Therefore, the petitioner has not established that either of these organizations requires 
outstanding achievements of their members. 
The petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Page 5 
Published materials about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classlJication is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary 
translation. 
In order to meet this criterion, published materials must be primarily about the petitioner and be 
printed in professional or major trade publications or other major media. To qualify as major 
media, the publication should have significant national distribution and be published in a 
predominant language. Some newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally serve a 
particular locality but would qualify as major media because of a significant national 
distribution. 
The petitioner provided documentation indicating that two articles on which she was co-author 
were reviewed by the Faculty of 1000 Biology. A copy of a page fiom the organization's 
website, accessed on April 10, 2007, states, "Faculty of 1000 Biology will be run by scientists 
for scientists, and will provide a rapidly updated consensus map of the important papers and 
trends across biology." Another page indicates that the "Faculty of 1000 Biology consists of 
some of the best scientists in their respective fields and involves both experienced and younger 
investigators." The petitioner also submitted information regarding the Faculty of 1000 Biology 
from the Wikipedia website, indicating that the Faculty of 1000 "acts as a filter, highlighting the 
most significant research." With regard to the information posted on Wikipedia, there are no 
assurances about the reliability of the content from this open, user-edited internet site.' See 
Badasa v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909 (8th Cir. 2008). As such, we will not give significant weight to 
claims for which Wikipedia is the only cited source. Other than information from the 
organization's own website, the petitioner submitted no documentation regarding the 
significance of a review by the Faculty of 1000 Biology. The record does not establish that the 
website is major media. Further, the petitioner submitted evidence of only two reviews, one in 
June 2005 and the other in September 2005. Two reviews within a four-month period do not 
constitute the extensive documentation necessary to qualify for this visa classification as required 
by the Act nor can they be considered evidence of sustained acclaim. 
1 
Online content from Wikipedia is subject to the following general disclaimer: 
Wikipedia is an online open-content collaborative encyclopedia, that is, a voluntary association of 
individuals and groups worlung to develop a common resource of human knowledge. The 
structure of the project allows anyone with an Internet connection to alter its content. Please be 
advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise 
required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information. . . . Wikipedia cannot 
guarantee the validity of the information found here. The content of any given article may 
recently have been changed, vandalized or altered by someone whose opinion does not 
correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields. 
See htt~:/len.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wih~edia:Di~clai11ier~, accessed on May 12, 2009, and incorporated into 
the record. 
The evidence does not establish that the petitioner 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 specijication for which classzjication is 
sought. 
In her response to the RFE, the petitioner stated that she "participated in the a er reviewing for 
a top journal (Nature Review Molecular and Cell Biology) along with d' The petitioner, 
however, submitted no documentation to corroborate that she reviewed any paper for these 
journals. Accordingly, she has failed to establish that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientfic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signzjicance in the field. 
With the petition, the petitioner submitted several letters of recommendation. However, she did 
not specify any particular contribution of major significance that she had made to her field of 
endeavor. In response to the RFE, she stated that her Ph.D. research "was the functional analysis 
of the Tricornered gene in Drosophila." She stated that she "not only identified a group of 
conserved and novel genes but also established a gene network that functions in regulating 
several important biological processes." The petitioner further stated: 
I also collaborated with a lot of labs with several successful accomplishments, one 
of which was the huge discovery of the role Trc and Furry play in regulating 
neural dendrite tiling. For many years people knew almost nothing about the 
mechanism of how neuronal dendrites got branching with specific pattern. For the 
first time, we found that Trc and Furry mutants played important roles in this. It 
was a great breakthrough in this field which will eventually help during mental 
retardation illness in human. 
The petitioner stated that her research was used b 
 others who "achieved more fantastic 
discover[ies]." In his August 1 1, 2005 letter, dl stated that the petitioner performed her 
dissertation research in his laboratory, focusing her research on "the Tricornered (Trc) kinase and 
other genes that function along with trc during the morphogenesis of the Drosophila adult 
epidermis." stated that "[tlhese are likely to play important roles in many human cells 
types and there is evidence for at least one of these genes being linked to cancer." He described 
the petitioner's research and experiments and indicated that the results of her research had been 
published in two resti 'ous scientific and medical journals and reviewed in another. In an April 
18, 2007 letter, stated that he ranked the petitioner in the top two percent of graduate 
students that he had known in his career. Nonetheless, did not describe the petitioner's 
work as constituting a contribution of major significance to the field. 
Professor of Biology and Cell Biology at UVA, stated in a November 1, 
2005 letter that he was a member of the petitioner's dissertation committee and that: 
While she was a graduate student at Virginia, [the petitioner] studied an essential 
protein called "tricornered". She used a variety of approaches to unveil 
tricornered's function in the hit fly, Drosophila melanogaster, whose well 
understood genetics makes this species one of the most powerful research systems 
available for unraveling the mysteries of development and disease in all 
multicellular animals, including humans. In only 3 years, [the petitioner] 
discovered why this protein is important in flies, and considerable detail about 
how it works. She also found that the human equivalent of tricornered is a tumor 
suppressor, and can function in flies just as well as Drosophila tricornered. Her 
work on fruit flies thus shed significant light on a protein that helps to protect 
human cells fiom becoming cancerous. The significance of such work speaks for 
itself, and I am confident that [the petitioner] will continue to make similarly 
important scientific contributions in the days to come. 
In an unsigned letter dated October 23, 2003, 
 an associate professor of Biology 
at UVA, stated that she was on the petitioner's dissertation committee for three years. She stated 
that the petitioner "has made substantial and valuable contributions" in her "important" area of 
research and that the "significance of her results have already attracted much attention and 
provoked intensive follow-up research worldwide." did not explain the nature of the 
attention or describe the research that has taken place as a result of the petitioner's prior work. 
In an August 29, 2005 letter 2 Professor of 
Molecular Physiology at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), stated that he had 
collaborated with the petitioner for over two years. He further stated: 
[The petitioner] has elucidated a clear signal transduction pathway involving this 
gene in vivo in addition to the essential amino acid sites of this protein. This was a 
huge amount of work, and [the petitioner] showed for the first time how this gene 
worked and is regulated in vivo in a multiple cellular organism, which shares high 
similarity to that of mammals. I think the beauty and value of her work is how she 
shed light on how this conserved gene, which involved signal transduction 
pathway might work in other higher organisms including humans. She published 
two first author papers in Molecular Biology of Cell (MBC), which is an 
excellent, highly competitive, biological journal. This is an indication of how 
[she] has established herself as a major contributor in this field. 
No evidence of record, however, supports 
 conclusion that publication alone, no matter 
how prestigious the journal, establishes that the petitioner has made a major contribution to her 
field of endeavor. In an April 17, 2007 letter, stated that the petitioner's "groundbreaking 
research on protein kinase has opened doors to other related field[s]" and that "[hler 
contributions will lead to drug and diagnostic tests that will be of utmost importance to many 
Americans who suffer from cancer and neuronal diseases." The possibility of any future 
contributions by the petitioner is not evidence that she has made a contribution of major 
significance to her field as of the date her petition was filed. A visa petition may not be approved 
Page 8 
based on speculation of future eligibility. See Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248 
(Reg. Comm. 1978); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 (Comm. 1971). 
an associate professor of Cell Biology at Duke University Medical School, stated 
in a Januaw 20, 2006 letter that the ~etitioner was the first to discover how the trc in Drosophila 
gene "play~ multiple functions in a multiple cellular organism." 
 further stated: 
Before her work, people only knew partially how some similar proteins work in in 
vitro cultured cells and lower organism like yeast. [The petitioner] not only 
deduced a beautiful signal transduction network involving this kinase but also 
clarified how this kinase is self-regulated. This is an incredible feat for PhD 
research because this work demands high level of creativity, determination, and 
perseverance. Because this kinase and its similar proteins, as well as their 
involved pathways, are highly conserved in mammals and humans, [the 
petitioner's] work has contributed significantly to our progress in finding novel 
treatment methods to cure the diseases resulting from these mutations. The 
importance of her work is evident from her publications in first-rate scientific 
journals and her presentations at major conferences in her field. 
did not state that the petitioner's work, while noteworthy, constituted a contribution of 
major significance, to her field of endeavor. In an April 30,2007 letter, 
 expanded on his 
comments, now stating that he knew the petitioner's work "very well because she once spent a 
couple of months" in his laboratory while they collaborated on a project. According to - 
[Tlhis project involved the discovery of a sophisticated enzyme in gene 
regulation, to be specific, DNA demethylation, a process that is used by stem cells 
to keep the mammalian genome capable of dynamically controlling multiple gene 
expression or activation level. This discovery is so important that it will reshape 
all aspects of cancer research and treatment, and will possible be a Nobel-prize 
winning discovery if proved. [The petitioner] played a vital role in this ground- 
laying work. 
indicates that the discovery made by his joint project with the petitioner has not been 
proved, and the petitioner submitted no documentary evidence that the discovery has reshaped 
cancer research. As discussed above, a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing. A 
visa petition may not be approved based on speculation of what may occur in the future. Matter 
of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
Others submitting letters on the petitioner's behalf included 
 Chairman of 
the Department of ~iochemistry at Southwestern Medical Center at the university of Texas, in a 
January 23, 2006 letter, stated that the petitioner had worked in his laboratory for a year, and that 
erge as a national leader in biomedical research in the decades to 
, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, described the 
petitioner's contributions as "substantial and valuable," and stated that she has "great potential 
for continuing to make significant contributions to the science and technologyof molecular, 
Page 9 
genetic and developmental biology;" , Senior Group Leader at the Friedrich 
Miescher Institute for Biomedical Research, in Basel, Switzerland, stated in an April 23, 2007 
letter, that his group had published "a few papers" which cited the petitioner's work, and that the 
~etitioner's work "would eventuallv lead to the cure of certain mental disorders like autism." He 
described the petitioner's "contribution to her immediate field" as "tremendous;" and - 
and, professors in the Department of Neurology at the UCSF, stated in 
a May 3, 2007 joint letter, state that the petitioner "has great potential to become an exceptional 
scientist who will be beneficial to the field of Biomedical Science in the United States in the near 
future." They stated further that the petitioner's "Ph.D. work has influenced work in many other 
labs studying cancer research, neuronal diseases, cell signaling, and others because of the 
importance and wide-spectrum of application." 
The above letters are primarily from the petitioner's collaborators and immediate colleagues. 
While such letters are important in providing details about the petitioner's role in various 
projects, they cannot by themselves establish the petitioner's national or international acclaim. 
The opinions of experts in the field, while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a 
successful claim of sustained national or international acclaim. The United States Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements 
submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 
(Commr. 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination 
regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters from experts 
supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the 
content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795. USCIS 
may even give less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated, in accord with other 
information or is in any way questionable. Id. at 795; see also Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 
158, 165 (Commr. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Regl. 
Commr. 1972)). 
While the petitioner's research is no doubt of value, it can be argued that any research must be 
shown to be original and present some benefit if it is to receive funding and attention from the 
scientific community. Any Ph.D. thesis or postdoctoral research, in order to be accepted for 
graduation, publication or funding, must offer new and useful information to the pool of 
knowledge. It does not follow that every researcher who performs original research that adds to 
the general pool of knowledge has inherently made a contribution of major significance to the 
field as a whole. 
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. 9 204.5(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. Many of the petitioner's references attest that her work was 
original, groundbreaking or significant. However, none of these descriptions are necessarily 
synonymous with "major contribution," and none of the petitioner's references indicate that her 
Page 10 
contributions were of a major significance to her field of endeavor. Others indicate that she has 
the potential to become a major contributor to her field. 
While the evidence demonstrates that the petitioner is a talented researcher with potential, it falls 
short of establishing that the petitioner had already made contributions of major significance. 
Thus, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
With her petition, the petitioner listed 10 articles on which she served as co-author that were 
published in various journals such as Cell, Molecular Biology of the Cell, and the Proceedings of 
the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America and at various conferences. 
She also listed one paper that was "in preparation." The petitioner provided copies of her 
published articles and of the abstracts she presented at conferences. In response to the RFE, the 
petitioner provided a list of citations to her work. However, of the 49 citations listed by the 
petitioner, 21 occurred after the filing date of the petition on May 30, 2006. As discussed above, 
the petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing; a petition cannot be approved at a 
future date after the petitioner or beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. 8 C.F.R. 
5 103.2(b)(1),(12), Matter ofklatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
The petitioner submitted documentation fiom the website of IS1 Web of Knowledge 
corroborating that two of her articles had been cited a total of 11 times. The petitioner also 
submitted several articles in which her papers had been referenced. These references sometimes 
occurred several times in a single document and therefore are not necessarily indicative of 
widespread acclaim. 
Duties or activities which nominally fall under a given regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3) do not demonstrate national or international acclaim if they are inherent or routine 
in the occupation itself. As frequent publication of research findings is inherent to success as an 
established research scientist, publications alone do 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 research teams or 
other proof that the alien's publications have had a significant impact in his field. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts: 
The [director's] decision misjudged my articles merely by the number of citations. 
This is a common obsession people have when dealing with publications. Clearly, 
the decision practiced the very concept that citation is the single most important 
factor when evaluating a published article. This has been criticized by many 
experts, as citation is not the only indicator of the quality of an article. 
The petitioner further states that "many articles of the greatest scientists, for instance, Nobel 
prize winners, will not always appear in the top journals or have a large number of citations." 
The petitioner cites as an example an article 
 which has had 
only 12 citations in the past 12 years, and one 
 in the same year 
that has only had 38 citations. Both doctors were Nobel ~hze winners. However, the petitioner 
does not suggest that these particular articles by these individuals were instrumental in their 
winning the Noble Prize. Not every article written by a Nobel Prize winner can be assumed to 
have had a major impact in their fields. 
Furthermore, a consistent history of citations is just one method of establishing the impact of the 
petitioner's work in her field of endeavor. While -indicates that he cited the 
petitioner's articles in his own papers, the petitioner's other references indicate that they 
collaborated with the petitioner. The petitioner submitted no other documentary evidence that her 
articles had a significant impact on her field of endeavor. 
The evidence does not establish that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
Finally, the conclusion we reach by considering the evidence to meet each criterion separately is 
consistent with a review of the evidence in the aggregate. Even in the aggregate, the evidence does 
not distinguish the petitioner as one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field 
of endeavor. The petitioner, a postdoctoral research associated, relies on ten publications and 
abstracts presented at conferences, and accolades from her collaborators and supervisors. While this 
may distinguish her from other postdoctoral researchers and research associates, we will not narrow 
her field to others with her level of training and experience. indicates that he has authored 
more than 75 papers and served on the editorial board of three scientific journals. is a 
member of the national Academy of Sciences of the USA and indicates that he has published over 
200 research papers and abstracts. Thus, it appears that the highest level of the petitioner's field is 
far above the level she has attained. 
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 her field of endeavor. 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished herself 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. 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.