dismissed EB-1A Case: Biomedical Research

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office of Administrative Appeals MS 2090 
d I 
,\ >!: G : , 
. , I ,?? ,.* 
 Washington, DC 20529-2090 
1 r,-it) , 
U. S. Citizenship 
,!ii IYJ ; 1 : 
/I and Immigration 
LIN 07 030 51456 
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. 8 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. $ 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). 
hhn F. Grissom 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska 
Service Center, and 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. 5 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien 
of extraordinary ability in the sciences. The director determined that the petitioner had not established 
the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualie for classification as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. More specifically, the director found that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate 
receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
On appeal, counsel argues that the petitioner meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3). 
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 hgh standard for 
individuals seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 
60898-99 (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. $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 
he has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
Page 3 
This petition, filed on November 7, 2006, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with 
extraordinary ability as a biomedical researcher. At the time of filing, the petitioner was working as 
a postdoctoral fellow in the laboratory of, Department of 
obstetrics, Gynecology and ~e~roductive Sciences, University of California, San ~rancisco. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(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 criteria at 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. 
9 204.5(h)(2). The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining 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. 
The petitioner submitted a December 3 1, 1998 "Certificate of Award" from Lanzhou University 
stating: "In recognition of the outstanding academic achievements, [the petitioner] has been 
awarded the Excellence Candidate of Ph.D. for the semester of 1997-1998." The director concluded 
that this award was an "institutional academic award" rather than a nationally or internationally 
recognized award for excellence in the petitioner's field of endeavor. We concur with the director's 
finding. University study is not a field of endeavor, but rather training for future employment in a 
field of endeavor. The petitioner's receipt of an award limited by its terms to Ph.D. candidates at his 
university is not an indication that he "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). Receipt of such an award offers no meaningful 
comparison between the petitioner and experienced researchers in the field who have long since 
completed their educational training. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of three research grants that name r, and m. 
Professor, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, 
University of California, San Francisco as the principal investigator of their respective projects. The 
petitioner also submitted evidence showing that he received a grant in 2000 from the Chinese 
Postdoctoral Science Foundation. The preceding research grants are not tantamount to the 
petitioner's receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the 
field. We note here that research grants simply fund a scientist's work. The past achievements of 
the principal investigator are a factor in grant proposals. The funding institution has to be assured 
that the investigator is capable of performing the proposed research. Nevertheless, a research grant 
' The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
is principally designed to fund future scientific research, and is not a national or international award 
to honor or recognize excellent achievement in the field. Further, we note that a substantial amount 
of scientific research is fimded by research grants from a variety of public and private sources. 
Therefore, we cannot conclude that obtaining funding for one's research constitutes receipt of a 
nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted an "Identification 
Certificate for Scientific and Technological Achievement" from the Science and Technology 
Department of Hunan Province (2007). This award recognized the project entitled "Research on 
Integrated A10 Process Technique and Equipment for SmallIMedium Urban Wastewater 
Treatment." The petitioner, however, is not listed among the thirteen "Project Members" who 
received this award. On appeal, counsel states: "[Wle are resubmitting documents and a letter 
which show that the petitioner's work . . . won an award, which was . . . ignored by the examiner." 
The petitioner submitted a letter from Senior Scientist in Environmental Science, Hunan 
Provincial Environmental Protection Scientific Research Institute, stating that the aforementioned 
project was "designed according to the principle originally found and reported by [the petitioner]" in 
three publications, but there is no evidence identifying the petitioner as an award recipient. The 
plain language of this regulatory criterion requires the alien to document his own receipt of the 
award. Awards presented to a third-party are not sufficient to establish eligibility for this criterion. 
Further, this award reflects provincial recognition rather than national or international recognition. 
Nevertheless, the preceding award from 2007 was issued subsequent to the petition's filing date. A 
petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of 
Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Regl. Commr. 1971). Accordingly, the AAO will not consider this 
evidence in this proceeding. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classiJication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, a 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 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. Further, the overall prestige of a given association is 
not determinative; the issue here is membership requirements rather than the association's overall 
reputation. 
The petitioner submitted documentation from the American Association for Cancer Research 
reflecting his "Associate" membership. The petitioner also submitted evidence showing that he is a 
"Fellow/Student Associate" member of The Endocrine Society. The record does not include 
documentation (such as membership bylaws) showing the admission requirements for these 
organizations. Nor is there evidence showing that the petitioner's level of membership is consistent 
with being among "that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 
8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(2). The petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for 
individuals already at the top of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward 
the top at some unspecified future time. 
In this case, there is no evidence showing that the petitioner holds membership in an organization 
requiring outstanding achievements its members, as judged by recognized national or international 
experts in his field or an allied one. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he 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 alliedjeld of specijication for which classljication is 
sought. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) provides that "a petition for an alien of extraordinary ability 
must be accompanied by evidence that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and 
that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." Evidence of the 
petitioner's participation as a judge must be evaluated in terms of these requirements. The weight 
given to evidence submitted to fulfill the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3)(iv), therefore, depends 
on the extent to which such evidence demonstrates, reflects, or is consistent with sustained national 
or international acclaim at the very top of the alien's field of endeavor. A lower evidentiary standard 
would not be consistent with the regulatory 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. 8 204.5(h)(2). 
The petitioner initially submitted a November 2000 "Letter of Appointment" stating (in its entirety): 
"According to the decision of the meeting of the Editorial Committee of Advance in Free Radical 
Life Science in Oct., 2000, [the petitioner] is appointed as the editor of the 2nd Editorial Committee 
of Advance in Free Radical Life Science." This Letter of Appointment did not provide an address, 
telephone number, or any other information through which the Editorial Committee can be 
contacted. Further, the plain language of this regulatory criterion requires "[elvidence of the alien's 
participation . . . as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specification." A letter 
of appointment is not tantamount to evidence of the petitioner's "participation" as a judge of the work 
of others. 
The director requested further evidence regarding the petitioner's duties for the Editorial Committee of 
responsei the petitioner submitted a December 28, 2007 
letter from 
 "Chief in Editor" [sic], Advance in Free Radical Life Science, 
stating: 
is a Professor of Biology at Lanzhou University (where the petitioner earned his Ph.D.) and has coauthored 
multiple papers with the petitioner. 
Page 6 
One of [the petitioner's] duties as an editor is performing a critical examination of the 
manuscripts reviewed, evaluating the originality of the research and the significance of their 
findings through review, thereby, making decision whether a manuscript will be accepted to 
publish in Advance in Free Radical Life Science. Another [the petitioner's] duty is having 
regular intervals discussion within the editor board to adjust the strategy of the development 
of this journal. 
In addressing the preceding evidence, the director's decision stated: "There is no indication as to how 
many people make up the editorial board. It is also not clear whether the petitioner held ultimate 
authority for selection of manuscripts, as opposed to malung recommendations as a peer reviewer." 
The director's decision also noted a "lack of objective evidence" establishing the reputation of Advance 
in Free Radical Life Science. The director's decision further stated: 
asserts that the journal is "an international, interdisciplinary publication." 
However, an internet search conducted on January 29, 2008 failed to find any hits under the 
exact name of the journal, "Advance in Free Radical Life Science." A second search 
pluralizing the title to "Advances in Free Radical Life Science" was also conducted, and 
yielded six hits for a Chinese language publication; all of the hits related to volumes 
published between 1993 and 1999, prior to petitioner's claimed appointment. 
On appeal, counsel argues that the petitioner should have been made aware of the preceding derogatory 
information in the director's request for evidence. We agree with counsel that director should have 
afforded the petitioner an opportunity to rebut this information and that the director's request for 
evidence could have been more comprehensive. At this point, the decision already having been 
rendered, the most expedient remedy for this complaint is the full consideration on appeal of any 
evidence which the petitioner would have submitted in rebuttal to the director's observations. The 
petitioner's appellate submission does not include such e~idence.~ Furthermore, we note that the 
derogatory information from the internet search was not the only ground upon which the director relied 
in finding that the petitioner's evidence did not meet this criterion. As discussed, the director's decision 
provided notice of additional deficiencies in the evidence submitted for this criterion. The petitioner's 
appellate submission does not include evidence specifically addressing these other deficiencies. 
In this case, there is no evidence establishing the reputation of the preceding journal, the specific 
work judged by the petitioner, his dates of participation, the names of those he evaluated, or 
documentation of his assessments. Nor has the petitioner submitted pages from past issues of 
Advance in Free Radical Life Science identifying him as a member of its Editorial Committee and 
his specific dates of service. Without evidence showing that the petitioner has judged the work of 
others in a manner consistent with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of his 
field, we cannot conclude that he meets this criterion. 
For example, there is no evidence showing that Advance in Free Radical Life Science has been published since the 
petitioner's editorial appointment in November 2000. 
Page 7 
Evidence of the alien's original scientij?~, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major signiJicance in the$eld. 
The petitioner submitted several letters of support from experts in his field. We cite representative 
examples here. 
Before [the petitioner] joined my lab he had made significant contributions to the cancer 
molecular research community. [The petitioner] discovered a novel mechanism of 
stabilization employed in the human, and other genomes: fast repair of DNA damage by 
small biologically active molecules. This was a significant breakthrough in understanding the 
mechanism of repair of DNA damage, and it paved the sway for exploring new drugs that 
would facilitate the prevention of DNA damage, hence, cancer and aging. [The petitioner] 
also showed that the Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) was the cause of nasopharyngeal carcinoma, 
and oxidative stress was involved in EBV induced carcinogenesis. This was the first direct 
evidence demonstrating that EBV was the etiological agent of nasopharyngeal carcinoma. 
His finding that natural antioxidants efficiently inhibit EBV induced carcinogenesis 
implicates a novel pathway for new drugs to treat EBV related cancer. 
- Professor and Vice Chair for Research, Department of Gynecology and 
Obstetrics, Emory University School of Medicine, states: 
[The petitioner's] record of scientific achievements includes several significant discoveries. 
Among the most dramatic are his investigations into the regulation of Ras activity. [The 
petitioner] has discovered that the mutant, RasGAP-Y460A, causes cells to lose the 
capability to turn off activation of Ras; hence, their capability to prevent malignant 
transformation is prevented. This is a finding of monumental significance with regard to our 
understanding of basic processes of the development of cancer, as it provides a unique and 
novel molecular marker for early cancer diagnosis, as well as a potential target for new drugs 
to treat tumors. 
Professor of Medicine, Chief, Section of Nephrology, and Director, Functional 
Genomics Facility, University of Chicago, states: 
[The petitioner's] research resulted in several first-in-the-world discoveries in the cancer 
research field. These include: (1) [The petitioner's] revolutionary discovery of fast repair of 
DNA damage by successfully establishing a unique model system of DNA damage. This 
model system allowed him to monitor and record the transient process (in microseconds) of 
DNA damage, and to detect the primary products of DNA damage with highly active 
reactivity and very short life span of microseconds. Fast repair of DNA damage is a newly 
discovered mechanism of stabilization of the genome; (2) [The petitioner] successfully 
investigated the mechanism of carcinogenesis induced by the Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), and 
provided the first direct evidence for EBV functioning as the etiological agent of 
nasopharyngeal carcinoma. He also discovered that oxidative stress is involved in EBV 
induced carcinogenesis. He is therefore credited with conclusively establishing a link 
between EBV, oxidative stress and nasopharyngeal carcinoma; (3) In his groundbreaking 
research effort on the role of P450c17 in early embryonic development, and by extension, in 
cancer development, [the petitioner] discovered that P450c17 is not only involved in the 
differentiation of stem cells, but it is also involved in the redifferentiation of carcinoma cells. 
This definitive and unique study has provided fundamental insights into early embryonic 
development and new clues on the subject of cancer development. 
, Associate Professor of Pathology, Medical University of South Carolina, states: 
Among [the petitioner's] achievements is his revolutionary discovery of the novel 
mechanism of genome stabilization, i.e., fast repair of DNA damage. Using an innovative 
model for DNA damage, [the petitioner] was able to track the transient process of DNA 
damage and its fast repair. He was the first scientist who successfully discovered that DNA 
damage can be almost immediately repaired by small biologically active molecules. . . . This 
is a significant breakthrough that plays a major role in the development of novel ways to 
explore more feasible strategy for prevention and treatment of cancer. 
Another of [the petitioner's] significant achievements demonstrating his extraordinary ability 
is his successfully investigating the role of oxidative stress, a state existing in many kinds of 
pathological conditions, in the Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) mediated carcinogenesis. [The 
petitioner] had ingeniously developed an innovative transgenic mouse for this purpose, made 
some milestone discoveries concerning EBV and certain cancers. These discoveries provide 
direct evidence that EBV is the cause of nasopharyngeal carcinoma, and oxidative stress is 
involved in the EBV induced carcinogenesis. 
, Assistant Professor of Medicine, Immunology, and Cancer Biology, University of 
Chicago, states: 
[The petitioner] established a unique and innovative model system of DNA damage for 
tracking the transient process of DNA damage, a process taking place in micro-second time 
scales. By this model system, [the petitioner] successfully monitored the process and 
detected the transient products of DNA damage, and furthermore, [the petitioner] discovered 
. . . that DNA damage is repaired quickly by small biological active molecules (natural 
antioxidants), hence, preventing mutation of the genome, which otherwise results along with 
the potential development of cancer and aging. This is a fundamental breakthrough in the 
research field of DNA damage and repair. 
states: 
One of [the petitioner's] significant contributions to biomedical research field is his 
revolutionary discovery of new mechanism of stabilization of genome: fast repair of DNA 
damage by small biological active molecules. This discovery was based on his novel and 
creative establishment of model system of DNA damage, whereby he was able to track the 
transient process of DNA damage in microsecond time scales, and was able to detect the 
primary forms of DNA damage with a life-span of microseconds. This is a monumental 
breakthrough in the understanding of the mechanism of repair of DNA damage . . . . 
In support of the preceding experts' statements, the petitioner submitted documentation showing 
scores of cites to his published findings. These citation indices are solid evidence that other 
researchers have been influenced by the petitioner's work and are familiar with it. This large 
number of citations corroborates the experts' statements that the petitioner has made contributions of 
major significance in his field. The record reflects that the petitioner's original scientific 
contributions are important not only to the research institution where he has worked, but throughout 
the greater field as well. Leading scientists in the field have acknowledged the value of the 
petitioner's work and its major significance in his field. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the Jeld, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of his co-authorship of articles appearing in publications such as 
Cell Biology International and Radiation Physics and Chemistry. The petitioner also submitted 
evidence of scores of articles that cite to his work. These citations demonstrate the significance of 
the petitioner's articles to his field. Accordingly, the petitioner has established that he meets this 
criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
At issue for ths criterion are the position the petitioner was selected to fill and the reputation of the 
entity that selected him. In other words, the position must be of such significance that the alien's 
selection to fill the position, in and of itself, is indicative of or consistent with national or international 
acclaim. 
We agree with the director's finding that the University of California, San Francisco has a distinguished 
reputation. With regard to the petitioner's role for the university, the petitioner submitted a September 
19,2006 letter from stating: 
I recruited [the petitioner] to join my laboratory in 2005 based upon his outstanding 
performance as a postdoctoral fellow in the laboratory of. . . . 
Page 10 
[The petitioner] plays a key role in our studies on development of new anticancer strategies 
and his contributions to date have been significant. 
The director acknowledged that "the petitioner has provided significant contributions to specific 
research projects within the university," but concluded that his role was not leading or critical to the 
university as a whole. The director's decision stated: 
The record lacks evidence demonstrating how the petitioner's role differentiated him from 
other researchers holding similar appointments, let alone more senior faculty in the organization. 
For instance, the record does not indicate that the petitioner was a principal investigator for 
any of the labs' research projects. 
On appeal, counsel argues that the director failed to mention letter and his observations 
regarding the petitioner's role. while letter states that the petitioner played a "key role 
. . . in studies on the development of new anticancer strategies," his letter does not address the 
importance of petitioner's role in relation to that of other researchers employed in their department 
or throughout the university. 
The petitioner submits a January 7,2008 letter from 
 stating: 
[The petitioner] worked in my lab at the University of California, San Francisco from 
January 2003 to August 2005. During this period he successfully performed studies on an 
important NIH funded project that involved state of the art technology. [The petitioner's] 
previous scientific productivity made him extremely qualified for this research. 
The petitioner's appellate submission includes an April 18, 2008 letter fiom - 
Clinical Professor of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, stating: 
[The petitioner] is currently working in my lab as an associate specialist and playing a 
leading role in two of our translational projects funded by the National Institutes of Health 
(NIH). The petitioner has been instrumental in the design and construction of lentiviral 
vectors that confer drug resistance to bone marrow stem cells. 
The petitioner's role in 
 laboratow post-dates the filing of the petition. A petitioner 
however, must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of 
Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
 Accordingly, the AAO is not required to consider subsequent 
developments in the petitioner's career in this proceeding. 
While the petitioner has performed admirably on the research projects to which he was assigned, 
there is no evidence showing that his role as a postdoctoral fellow was leading or critical for his 
department or the university. This subordinate role is designed to provide temporary research 
training for a future professional career in the field of endeavor. We agree with the director's 
finding that there is no evidence demonstrating how the petitioner's role differentiated him fiom other 
researchers at the university holding similar appointments, let alone its more senior tenured faculty 
Page 1 1 
(including 
 and 1.' The documentation submitted by the petitioner does 
not establish that he was responsible for the university's success or standing to a degree consistent with 
the meaning of "leading or &tical role" and indicative of sustained national or international acclaim. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
In this case, we find that the petitioner meets only two of the regulatory criteria, three of which are 
required to establish eligibility. 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate his 
receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the criteria that 
must be satisfied to establish the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify as 
an alien of extraordinary ability. 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. 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(2). 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself to such an extent 
that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the 
small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's 
achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field at a national or international 
level. 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. § 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will 
be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4 
 A comparison of the petitioner's position and achievements with those of his superiors and of the other individuals 
offering letters of support indicates that the very top of the field is a level above his present level of achievement.