dismissed EB-1A Case: Biomedical Drug Discovery Research

(b)(6)
DATE: MAR 2 3 2015 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
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 
20 3(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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. § 10 3.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
� D� 
Ron Rosenberg � 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www .uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. We will dismiss the 
appeal. 
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. § 1153(b)(l)(A). This 
statute makes visas available to those who can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained 
national or international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in their field through 
extensive documentation. The director determined that the petitioner had not satisfied the initial 
evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3), which requires documentation of a one-time 
achievement or evidence that meets at least three of the ten regulatory criteria; 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a brief with previously submitted correspondence relating to this case 
and a U.S. Citizenship and hnmigration Services (USCIS) policy memorandum. Within the appeal 
brief, the petitioner indicates that the director did not apply the appropriate standard of proof to the 
petitioner's evidence. 
For the reasons discussed below, we find that the petitioner has not established his eligibility by a 
preponderance of the evidence for the exclusive classification sought. Specifically, the petitioner 
has not submitted qualifying evidence of a one-time achievement pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), 
evidence that, as of the date of filing, satisfies at least three of tbe ten regulatory criteria set forth in 
the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), or comparable evidence pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(4). As such, the petitioner has not demonstrated that he is one of the small percentage 
who are at the very top in the field of endeavor, and that he has sustained national or international 
acclaim. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3). Accordingly, we will dismiss the petitioner's appeal. 
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 
(b)(6)
Page3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
USCIS and legacy hnmigration 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 H.R. 723 10151 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.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can 
demonstrate the foreign subject's sustained acclaim and the recognition of his achievements in the field 
through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If the 
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 1115 (91h Cir. 2010) 
(discussing a two-part review where the evidence is first counted and then, if satisfying the required 
number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination). See also Rijal v. USCIS, 
772 F.Supp.2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011) (affirming USCIS' proper application of Kazarian), aff'd, 683 
F.3d. 1030 (91h Cir. 2012); Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F.Supp.3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013) (finding that 
USCIS appropriately applied the two-step review); Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 
(AAO 201 0) (holding that the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by 
its quality" and that USCIS examines "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and 
credibility, both individually and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine 
whether the fact to be proven is probably true"). 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Preponderance of the Evidence 
Within the appellate brief, the petitioner indicates that the director did not apply the appropriate 
standard of proof, the preponderance of the evidence. The brief cites to Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N 
Dec. at 376, and references a USCIS memorandum explaining that the proper standard of proof is the 
preponderance of the evidence, and also cites to I.N.S. v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 421, 107 S. 
Ct. 1207, 1208, 94 L. Ed. 2d 434 (1987), which defines the preponderance as more likely than not as 
a greater than 50 percent probability of some action occurring. 
The petitioner does not discuss or point to any specific occurrences in which the director applied an 
elevated standard of proof to the petitioner's evidence. Within the appellate brief, the petitioner states: 
"The Texas Service Center denied the underlying I-140 on one ground: that [the petitioner] failed to 
prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is a scientist of extraordinary ability in the area of 
biomedical drug discovery research." The director, however, ultimately came to this conclusion 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page4 
because the petitioner had not meet his burden of production to satisfy at least three of the regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3) or established his ability to rely on comparable evidence pursuant to 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). Additionally, the petitioner does not provide any specific examples of how 
the director applied a standard higher than the preponderance of the evidence standard of proof to 
any of the petitioner's evidence. 
A review of the record and the director's decision does not reveal that the director applied a higher 
standard of proof than the preponderance of the evidence. 
B. Evidentiary Criteria1 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The director discussed the evidence submitted for this criterion and found that the petitioner did not 
establish his eligibility. The petitioner did not provide a response for this criterion within the Request 
for Evidence (RFE) response, nor does he assert eligibility under this criterion on appeal. As the 
petitioner does not contest the director's findings for this criterion or offer additional discussion, he has 
abandoned his claims under this criterion. Sepulveda v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th 
Cir. 2005); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *1, 9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 
2011) (the court found the plaintiffs claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the 
AAO). Accordingly, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence under 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. 
The director discussed the evidence submitted for this criterion and found that the petitioner did not 
establish his eligibility. The petitioner did not provide a response for this criterion within the RFE 
response, nor does he assert eligibility under this criterion on appeal. As the petitioner does not contest 
the director's findings for this criterion or offer additional discussion, he has abandoned his claims 
under this criterion. Sepulveda 401 F.3d at 1228 n.2; Hristov, 2011 WL 4711885, at *9. Accordingly, 
the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence under 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 field for which classification is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
The director discussed the evidence submitted for this criterion and found that the petitioner did not 
establish his eligibility. The petitioner did not provide a response for this criterion within the RFE 
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 
Page5 
response, nor does he assert eligibility under this criterion on appeal. As the petitioner does not contest 
the director's fmdings for this criterion or offer additional arguments, he has abandoned his claims 
under this criterion. Sepulveda 401 F.3d at 1228 n.2; Hristov, 2011 WL 4711885, at *9. Accordingly, 
the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence under 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 allied field of specification for which classification is sought. 
The director determined the petitioner met the requirements of this criterion. The petitioner has 
submitted sufficient evidence, including his review of Ph.D. dissertations and as a peer reviewer and 
editor for various scholarly journals, to establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
The plain language of this regulatory criterion contains multiple evidentiary elements that the petitioner 
must satisfy. The first is evidence of the petitioner's contributions in his field. These contributions 
must have already been realized rather than being potential, future contributions. The petitioner must 
also demonstrate that his contributions are original. The evidence must establish that the contributions 
are scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related in nature. The final requirement is that the 
contributions rise to the level of major significance in the field as a whole, rather than to a project or to 
an organization. The phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, it has some 
meaning. Silver man v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 51 F. 3d 28, 31 (3rd Cir. 1995) quoted in 
APWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 626 (2"d Cir. Sep 15, 2003). At issue is not the importance of the 
petitioner's field or the potential for the petitioner to make contributions to an important field in the 
future. Contributions of major significance connotes that the petitioner's work has already significantly 
impacted the field.· See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v); see also Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 135-13 6. The 
petitioner must submit evidence satisfying all of these elements to meet the plain language requirements 
of this criterion. 
Moreover, a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing; a petition cannot be approved at a 
future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l), 
(12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). See also Matter of Izummi, 22 
I&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (adopting the holding in Matter ofBardouille, 18 I&N Dec. 
114 (BIA 1981), that USCIS cannot "consider facts that come into being only subsequent to the filing of 
a petition.") Accordingly, at issue is whether his influence and citation record at the time of filing were 
indicative of recognized contributions of major significance at that time. 
The petitioner initially submitted testimonial letters from experts in the field. The director requested 
additional evidence within the RFE and provided examples of forms of evidence that might assist the 
petitioner in demonstrating his eligibility. The petitioner's response to the RFE referenced his citation 
record as provided with the initial petition. Within his decision, the director discussed the expert letters, 
acknowledged the petitioner's citation record, and indicated that although the petitioner's research 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
findings had been helpful to the field, he had not demonstrated that his research had sufficiently 
impacted the field. The director provided quotes from two expert letters and concluded that although 
the letter's authors described the petitioner's original contributions, they did not demonstrate that his 
contributions were of major significance in the field. The director ultimately determined that the 
petitioner did not meet the requirements of this criterion. 
On appeal, the petitioner indicates that the director's RFE stated that if the petitioner had been cited, that 
would be probative evidence of his original contributions and that the citations the petitioner submitted, 
along with the letters, serve to satisfy this criterion. The director's RFE, however, stated: "To assist in 
determining whether the beneficiary's contributions are original and of major significance, you may 
submit: ... Evidence that the beneficiary's major significant contribution(s) has provoked widespread 
public commentary in the field or has been widely cited." First, the director referenced widespread 
commentary or citation. Regardless, that the director indicated a form of evidence might assist the 
petitioner is not an indication that the submission of such evidence would necessarily result in the 
petitioner establishing eligibility under this criterion. On appeal, the petitioner mentions his citations 
and the expert letters but does not explain the significance of his citation record or discuss examples 
where the expert letters demonstrate his impact within the field. 
The director discussed the letters from and 
Associate Director of provided two letters. The first letter, 
dated February 16, 2012, indicated the petitioner has made significant contributions that will lay the 
groundwork for the development of new drugs in the future. also indicates that the 
petitioner's expertise led to the discovery of several novel compounds "that have the ability to impact" 
work in his field. Although characterizes the petitioner's work as "truly significant," he 
primarily explains the novel nature of the petitioner's work, rather than describing how this novel work 
has already made an impact in the field. Not 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. letter dated October 9, 2013 also discusses how the petitioner's work will have 
"valuable utility in drug discovery research and the pharmaceutical industry," but does not explain how 
the petitioner's research is currently impacting the field at large. 
Vice President of also discusses the petitioner's work, and 
although he indicates that the petitioner has made "highly original and erudite contributions to the field 
of biomedical research," he too does not identify the petitioner's contributions that have already been 
realized. Instead, identifies contributions that have the potential to have such impacts within 
the field. Future prospective benefits that the petitioner's findings may have in the field are not 
elements that will qualify him under this criterion. The regulation requires that the petitioner has 
already made major and significant impacts within the field. 
The petitioner also submitted several other letters initially and in response to the RFE. These letters 
further discuss the novelty of the petitioner's findings, but the letters do not establish that his work has 
already made a significant impact within his field. For example, the August 30, 2013 letter from 
Chief Editorial Director of the publication, indicates the petitioner 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
performed peer-review on a single article for the journal. letter reflects that the publication 
selects reviewers based on three criteria: (1) possession of a doctoral degree or status in the senior stage 
of a doctoral program; (2) a national and/or an international reputation in the field; (3) significant 
contributions in the field as evidenced by peer-reviewed journal and/or conference publications. 
Although indicates that the petitioner meets the publication's criteria for making significant 
contributions in the field, she did not explain the criteria for significant contributions other than 
publication and did not provide examples of the petitioner's impact the field. Therefore, this conclusory 
letter is not sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the petitioner's selection as a peer reviewer for this 
publication should be considered beyond the judging criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). More 
specifically, merely repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's 
burden of proof. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F. 
2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). Similarly, 
USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory assertions. 1756, Inc., 745 F. Supp. at 15. 
Regarding the petitioner's citation record, although the petitioner indicates that citations to his work 
demonstrate a contribution of major significance, he has not established that the number of citations is 
significant or that a notable number of the citing authors placed unusual reliance on his work. It is 
commonplace for articles to cite other published works without the cited work being influential or 
serving as a foundational basis for their work. On appeal, the petitioner relies on the total number of 
citations in the aggregate. More probative of the influence of an individual contribution, however, is the 
number of citations for a specific article. Regarding the petitioner's most cited article, ' 
this work had a moderate citation record at the time he filed 
the petition. The petitioner has not demonstrated that, at the time of filing, the work reported in this 
article was already recognized as a contribution of major significance in the field. If the petitioner had 
wanted to demonstrate that the citations themselves, rather than the number of citations, are significant, 
he would need to submit the necessary evidence to establish the context of a selection of citations. The 
petitioner, however, provided the cover page of each citing article and the portion of the references 
section listing his work without any examples of the text for which the author cited the petitioner's 
work. Accordingly, he did not establish that the context of the citations is particularly notable. 
The petitioner must have already demonstrably impacted his field at the time of filing in order to meet 
this regulatory criterion. See 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v); see also Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134. The 
reference letters included in the director's decision discuss the petitioner's skills and research activities, 
but they do not provide specific examples of how the petitioner's work has significantly impacted the 
field at large or otherwise constitutes original contributions of major significance. 
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has stated that testimony should not be disregarded simply 
because it is "self-serving." See, e.g., Matter of S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 1328, 1332 (BIA 2000) (citing 
Matter of M-D-, 21 I&N Dec. 1180 (BIA 1998); Matter ofY-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998); Matter 
of Dass, 20 I&N Dec. 120 (BIA 1989); see also Matter of Acosta, 19 I&N Dec. 211, 218 (BIA 1985)). 
The Board clarified, however: "We not only encourage, but require the introduction of corroborative 
testimonial and documentary evidence, where available." Matter of S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. at 1332. If 
(b)(6)
i_ 
rr 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
testimonial evidence lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for the petitioner to 
submit corroborative evidence. Matter ofY-B-, 21 I&N Dec. at 1136. 
Vague, solicited letters from local colleagues that do not specifically identify contributions or provide 
specific examples of how those contributions influenced the field are insufficient. Kazarian v. USCIS, 
580 P.3d 1030, 1036 (91h Cir. 2009) aff'd in part 596 P.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). In 2010, the Kazarian 
court reiterated the conclusion that "letters from physics professors attesting to [the alien's] 
contributions in the field" was insufficient was "consistent with the relevant regulatory language." 596 
P.3d at 1122. The opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and we have considered them 
above. While such letters can provide important details about the petitioner's skills, they cannot form 
the cornerstone of a successful assertion of extraordinary ability. 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 (Comrn'r 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final 
determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. !d. 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; 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"). Additionally, each letter submitted in support of the petitioner's eligibility 
appears to have been drafted in response to the petitioner's efforts in attaining permanent resident status 
in the United States. While letters authored in support of the petition have probative value, they are 
most persuasive when supported by evidence that already existed independently in the public sphere. 
Such independent evidence might indude but is not limited to letters from independent industry experts 
with firsthand knowledge of the petitioner's impact in the field, media coverage, and widespread 
citation to the petitioner's work as of the date of filing. 
Based on the foregoing, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that demonstrates that, at the time of 
filing, the petitioner met the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The director determined the petitioner met the requirements of this criterion. The petitioner has 
submitted sufficient evidence, including multiple published articles, abstracts, and conference 
proceedings, to establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
The petitioner indicates that the display of his work at scientific conferences and conference 
proceedings is evidence comparable to this criterion. The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows 
the petitioner to submit comparable evidence if he is able to demonstrate that the standards at 
8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not readily apply to his occupation. Therefore, the petitioner must 
demonstrate that the criterion does not readily apply and that the evidence is, in fact, comparable, to 
properly apply for comparable evidence. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page9 
While artistic exhibitions and showcases may not be readily applicable to the petitioner's occupation in 
the sciences, the petitioner must also establish that presentations at scientific conferences are 
comparable to displays of work at artistic exhibitions or showcases. Scientific conferences facilitate the 
dissemination of research among scientists and are not comparable to artistic showcases or exhibitions 
designed to showcase work to the public. Although the petitioner submits this evidence as 
comparable to the display criterion, conference presentations are typically published in conference 
proceedings, serve the same purpose as scholarly articles in journals, and, therefore, fall under the 
scholarly articles criterion. In fact, the petitioner's initial brief included evidence of conference 
proceedings under the scholarly articles criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), which the director 
credited him for under that criterion. Consistent with the regulatory requirement for evidence that 
meets three separate criteria, evidence relating to or even meeting the scholarly articles criterion is not 
presumptive comparable evidence to a different criterion. See Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1122 (upholding 
our determination not to consider conference presentations of scholarly findings under this criterion). 
Therefore, the petitioner may not rely on comparable evidence under this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
A leading role should be apparent by its position in the overall organizational hierarchy and the role's 
matching duties. The petitioner has the responsibility to demonstrate that he actually performed the 
duties listed relating to the leading role. A critical role should be apparent from the petitioner's impact 
on the organization or the establishment's activities. The petitioner's performance in this role should 
establish whether the role was critical for the organization or establishment as a whole. The petitioner 
must demonstrate that the organizations or establishments have a distinguished reputation. While 
neither the regulation nor precedent speak to what constitutes a distinguished reputation, Merriam­
Webster's online dictionary defmes distinguished as, "marked by eminence, distinction, or excellence."2 
Dictionaries are not of themselves evidence, but they may be referred to as aids to the memory and 
understanding of the court. Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304, 306 (1893). Therefore, it is the petitioner's 
burden to demonstrate that the organizations or establishments on which he relies under this criterion 
are marked by eminence, distinction, excellence, or an equivalent reputation. The petitioner must 
submit evidence satisfying all of these elements to meet the plain language requirements of this 
criterion. 
The petitioner relies on his positions as editor or reviewer for scientific journals to satisfy this criterion. 
The director determined that the petitioner had submitted insufficient evidence to demonstrate that he 
had satisfied this criterion's requirements. On appeal, the petitioner indicates that his performance as an 
editor for three journals demonstrates that he performed in a critical role for . 
are critical roles for those 
2 See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/distinguished, accessed on February 24 , 2015, a copy of which 
is i ncorporated into the record of proceeding. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
journals. The petitioner generally asserts that performing as an editor of a scientific journal is a critical 
role for any publication. At the outset we note that the petitioner's editorial roles are probative evidence 
for the classification sought and contributed to his satisfaction of the judging criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). That said, evidence may be relevant to more than one criterion where a petitioner 
demonstrates such relevance. 
General assertions that the position of journal editor at a scientific journal is inherently critical by its 
nature is not persuasive as not every editor for every scientific journal performs identical duties. The 
petitioner must submit evidence relating to each of the editorial positions that he has occupied to 
establish the duties he actually performed. Regarding . the petitioner 
submits the journal's home website page, and an October 8, 20 13 letter from an editorial 
staff member at the journal. The website printout reflects that the publication is a peer-reviewed, open 
access journal that covers a wide range of subjects. The journal's home website page is insufficient to 
demonstrate that this publication enjoys a distinguished reputation. We will not presume the reputation 
of an organization based on these common aspects as not every peer-reviewed, publicly accessible 
publication has earned a distinguished reputation. also indicates this journal has an impact 
factor of 1.73, but the petitioner did not provide the information or evidence demonstrating how this 
impact factor compares with other biomedical drug discovery journals, which might assist in 
demonstrating that this journal enjoys a distinguished reputation. The petitioner also did not provide 
evidence relating to the journal's impact factor before he joined the publication as an editor, which 
might assist in showing the petitioner's impact on the journal's activities. 
In reference to the petitioner's role at the journal, provides a description of the value of 
journal editors in general instead of providing specific information about the role the petitioner performs 
for the publication. Notably, the petitioner submitted a partial list of 39 editors in 
with last names beginning with A-K. While we do not question the necessity for a journal to employ 
competent editors, the petitioner has not demonstrated that his role as one more than 39 editors was 
critical. As previously stated, we will not infer the nature of the petitioner's role solely from the job 
title. The letter falls short of specifying how the petitioner contributed to the organization in a way that 
is significant to the organization's outcome or what role he played in the organization's activities. See 
Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 135. The record does not establish that the petitioner served in a critical 
role for this organization and that this organization has a distinguished reputation as required under this 
regulatory criterion. 
Regarding the reputation of the the petitioner submits the journal's 
home website page, the journal's editorial board, one issue of the journal's table of contents, a special 
issue editorial the petitioner authored, and a letter from the publication's 
publisher. Although the submitted evidence indicates this semi-annual publication is peer-reviewed, 
collected by major libraries, and is widely read across the scientific community, the record lacks 
evidence corroborating that the publication is marked by eminence, distinction, excellence, or an 
equivalent reputation. USCIS need not rely on the self-promotional material of the publisher. See 
Braga v. Pou lo s, No. CV 06 5105 SJO (C. D. CA July 6, 2007) aff'd 2009 WL 604888 (91h Cir. 2009) 
(concluding that the AAO did not have to rely on the assertions on the cover of a magazine as to the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
magazine's status as major media). The petitioner has not provided evidence that corroborates the 
information from the website relating to the journal being collected by major libraries and being widely 
read across the scientific community. Further, the petitioner did not explain or provide evidence of how 
these elements factor into the journal having a distinguished reputation as it relates to similar 
publications. 
Regarding whether the petitioner's role was critical for the publication, describes how the 
special issue article that the petitioner authored, received wide publicity that also resulted in a 
significant increase in the publication's notoriety. The petitioner did not submit evidence to corroborate 
assertion that the journal's increased notoriety is due to the petitioner's special issue 
editorial. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of 
meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Assoc. 
Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter ofTreasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
The petitioner has not established that he performed in a critical role for this publication, nor has he 
demonstrated that it enjoys a distinguished reputation in accordance with the regulation. 
The final publication is The only evidence the petitioner submitted 
pertaining to this journal was a September 25, 2013 letter from the 
publication's Editor-in-Chief, which the petitioner submitted in response to the director's RFE. Within 
letter, he does not sufficiently establish that this publication has a distinguished reputation. 
only states that the journal is an internationally peer-reviewed journal in the field of natural 
product chemistry published by As such, the petitioner has not submitted 
evidence that this publication enjoys a distinguished reputation. Regarding the petitioner's role for the 
publication, indicates the petitioner is a reviewer for the journal and that he has performed 
peer review a total of eight times. provides a general description of the petitioner's duties as 
a reviewer as "working with the Editor to ensure that manuscripts published have the highest level of 
scientific integrity." He also indicates that the petitioner has contributed greatly to the success of the 
journal, but does not provide any details of the manner in which the petitioner's performance has 
positively impacted the publication. He does not explain how has progressed 
since the petitioner began working there in 2009. He also does not indicate how many reviewers the 
journal uses and how their role compares with that of the editors. USCIS need not accept primarily 
conclusory assertions. 1756, Inc. v. TheA ttorney General ofthe United States, 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. 
Dist. 1990). 
Based on the foregoing, the petitioner has not demonstrated that he has performed in a critical role for 
publications that also enjoy a distinguished reputation. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for 
services, in relation to others in the field. 
The director discussed the evidence submitted for this criterion and found that the petitioner did not 
establish his eligibility. The petitioner did not provide a response for this criterion within the RFE 
response, nor does he assert eligibility under this criterion on appeal. As the petitioner does not contest 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
the director's findings for this criterion or offer additional arguments, he has abandoned his claims 
under this criterion. Sepulveda 401 F.3d at 1228 n.2; Hristov, 2011 WL 4711885, at *9. Accordingly, 
the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence under this criterion. 
C. 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 achieved 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. 
Had the petitioner submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary categories, in 
accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) 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," and (2) "that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 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 1122. 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 at the time of filing.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. § 1361; Matter of 
Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, the petitioner has not met that burden. 
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 
P.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.P.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(ii); see also INA 
§§ 103(a)(1), 204(b); DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); 8 C.P.R.§ 2.1 (2003); 8 C.P.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 jurisdiction to decide visa petitions).