dismissed EB-1A Case: Biomedical Research

rMe!@ing data dew to 
pwent clearly unwarranted 
brasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC CmTP 
U.S. Department of Homeland Securitj 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office of Administrative Appeols MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: APR 1 5 2010 
LIN 09 048 51 123 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(I)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act; 8 U.S.C. 8 I 153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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. 
3 103.5 for the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally 
decided your case by filing 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. 8 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
erry Rhew 
hief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
Nebraska Service Center, on June 30, 2009, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office 
on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 3 1 153(b)(l)(A), as an 
alien of extraordinary ability as a biomedical researcher. The director determined that the 
petitioner had not established the requisite extraordinary ability and failed to submit extensive 
documentation of his sustained national or international acclaim. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the 
statute that the petitioner demonstrate "sustained national or international acclaim" and present 
"extensive documentation" of his or her achievements. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act. 8 
U.S.C. $3 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 
C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) states that an alien can establish sustained national or international acclaim 
through evidence of a one-time achievement of a major, internationally recognized award. 
Absent the receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria that call for the 
submission of specific objective evidence. 8 C.F.R. 45 204.5(h)(3)(i) through (x). Through the 
submission of required initial evidence, at least three of the ten regulatory criteria must be 
satisfied for an alien to establish the basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, counsel claims that he meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
4 204.5(h)(3). 
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 
Page 3 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will 
substantially benefit prospectively the United States. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization 
Service (INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for 
individuals seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 10ISt 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. Id. and 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3) requires that an alien demonstrate his or her sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim and achievements 
must be established either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is. a major, 
international recognized award) or through meeting at least three of the following ten criteria. 
(i) Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor; 
(ii) 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; 
(iii) 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; 
(iv) Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge 
of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which 
classification is sought; 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major significance in the field; 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media; 
(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases; 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for 
organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation; 
(ix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field; or 
(x) Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a 
petition filed under this classification. Kazariun v. USCIS, 201 0 WL 7253 17 (9th Cir. March 4, 
201 0). Although the court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with 
the AAO's evaluation of evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion.' With respect to 
the criteria at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS may have 
raised legitimate concerns about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two 
criteria, those concerns should have been raised in a subsequent "final merits determination." Id. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of e~ridence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the 
petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed 
to satisfy the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." Id. at "6 
(citing to 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)). The court also explained the "final merits determination" as the 
corollary to this procedure: 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, USCIS determines whether the 
evidence demonstrates both a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one 
of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor," 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), and "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. 5 204.5(h)(3). Only aliens whose achievements have garnered 
"sustained national or international acclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary 
ability" visa. 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A)(i). 
Id. at *3. 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then, if 
qualifying under three criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination. In 
reviewing Service Center decisions, the AAO will apply the test set forth in Kazarian. As the AAO 
maintains de novo review, the AAO will conduct a new analysis if the director reached his or her 
conclusion by using a one-step analysis rather than the two-step analysis dictated by the Kuzarian 
court. See Dor V. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989) (noting that the AAO reviews appeals 
on a de novo basis). 
' Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel, substantive, or evidentiary 
requirements beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. 4 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. 
5 204,5(h)(3)(vi). 
Page 5 
11. Analysis 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria under 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3). 
Documentation of the alien!,. receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
A review of the director's decision reflects that he found the petitioner's submission of 
fellowships insufficient to establish eligibility under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
On appeal, the petitioner did not address this criterion or contest the decision of the director. 
At the time of the original filing of the petition, the petitioner claimed eligibility for this criterion 
based on the following submitted documentation: 
The Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation Postdoctoral Fellowship 
Award for "the role of IKKbeta in tobacco smoking-induced lung 
carcinogenesis" on June 2,2006; 
The World Health Organization Fellowship Award "to study health 
promotion and treatment" on June 10, 1999; 
The American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) Scholar-in- 
Training for "financial support for predoctoral students, medical students 
and residents, postdoctoral and clinical fellows, or the equivalent" in 2005; 
Second Place at the Gulf-Coast Society of Toxicology (GCSOT) for the 
Graduate Student Platform Presentations for Thiazolidinediones, a Class 
of Insulin Sensitizers, Suppress IGF-l Tumor Promoting Activity in 2005; 
First Place at the Second Annual Graduate Student Retreat, the University 
of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center for "an outstanding presentation" 
on September 17,2004; 
Sixth Place for the Science and Technique Achievement Award by the 
Education Committee, Henan Province, China in September 2001 ; 
An offer as a postdoctoral scholar-employee at the University of 
California on November 28,2005; 
An offer for a position as a postdoctoral fellowship research associate at 
the Duke University Medical Center on April 8, 2005; and 
An offer for a postdoctoral position at the University of Texas M.D. 
Anderson Cancer Center on July 15,2005. 
The petitioner failed to submit any documentation regarding any of his fellowship and student 
awards to demonstrate recognition beyond the presenting organizations to establish that they are 
' The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
nationally or internationally recognized awards or prizes. Similarly, being offered employment 
at a university is not considered a prize or award, much less one that is nationally or 
internationally recognized. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the jeld for which 
classzjication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their 
members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in their 
disciplines or fields. 
In the director's decision, he found that the petitioner failed to establish that his membership with 
AACR required outstanding achievements by its members as judged by national or international 
experts pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). On appeal, the petitioner did not 
address this criterion or contest the decision of the director. 
At the time of the original filing of the petition, the petitioner claimed eligibility for this criterion 
based on the following submitted documentation: 
2. A copy of the petitioner's AACR membership card indicating that the 
petitioner is an active member in good standing; and 
3. An ACCR membership application. 
According to ACCR's membership application, the requirements for active membership are as 
follows: 
Active membership is open to investigators worldwide who have conducted two 
years of research resulting in articles in peer-reviewed publications relevant to 
cancer and cancer-related biomedical science, or who have made substantial 
contributions to cancer research in an administrative or educational capacity. 
Evidence of patents relevant to cancer research may be provided as qualifications 
for membership in lieu of peer-reviewed publications. A complete application for 
Active membership consists of the Official AACR Membership Application Form 
with all requested information provided including appropriate signatures of two 
nominators who are existing Active, Emeritus, or Honorary members in good 
standing; a copy of the candidate's curriculum vitae and bibliography; and 
payment for the first year's dues in the amount of $265. 
While AACR's membership requirements for an active member provide standards and narrow 
membership to those who achieve two years of research resulting in peer-reviewed articles or 
who have made substantial contributions to cancer research, those standards fail to reflect that 
outstanding achievement is an essential condition for membership. A substantial contribution is 
not necessarily an outstanding achievement. We are not persuaded that completing two years of 
research resulting in articles in peer-reviewed publications or making substantial contributions for a 
single organization meets the plain language of the regulation. Further, the documentation 
submitted by the petitioner failed to establish that membership with AACR requires outstanding 
achievement as judged by recognized national or international experts as required by this 
criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
Published material about the trlien in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which 
class$cation is sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of 
the material, and any necessar-y translation. 
The petitioner claims eligibility for this criterion based on the following submitted 
documentation: 
1. A brief blurb entitled, Avoid a Sticky Situation, in Science, edited by 
Constance Holden, on June 29,2007; 
2. A review of the website titled BioRating.com, from Genetic Engineering 
& Biotechnology News (GEN)'s website, by- on November 
15,2008; and 
3. A review of the website titled BioRatina.com-Your Bio Research 
Experience, from GEN's website, by on December 1,2008. 
In general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the 
petitioner and, as stated in the regulations, be printed in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media. 
In addition, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires that the 
published material be about the petitioner relating to his work. Compare 8 C.F.R. 
5 204..5(i)(3)(i)(C) relating to outstanding researchers or professors pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(B) 
of the Act, which only requires published material about the alien's work. 
Regarding item 1, while the brief snippet credits the petitioner with creating a new website, the 
article is primarily about biorating.com and not primarily about the petitioner relating to his work. 
In fact, besides referring to the petitioner as the website's creator, the short paragraph is entirely a 
description of the function and use of the website. In this case, we are not persuaded that a single 
article whose only mention of the petitioner is in crediting him with the creation of a website meets 
the plain language of this regulatory criterion. 
Regarding items 2 and 3, similar to item 1, these reviews are not published material about the 
petitioner relating to his work. Rather, the reviews relate entirely to critiques of biorating.com. 
In fact, the petitioner is not even mentioned in any of these reviews. Nevertheless, while the 
petitioner claims on appeal that GEN is "the most widely read biotechnology publication around 
Page 8 
the globe, and has been linked by numerous other scientific websites," the petitioner bases his 
claims on information from GEN's own website. We simply cannot rely solely on information 
from a website whose purpose is to promote and market itself in order to increase distribution and 
readership. The petitioner failed to submit any other documentation demonstrating that GEN is a 
professional or major trade publication or other major media. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientijic, scholarly, artistic, or business-related 
contributions of a major signijicance in the field 
In the director's decision, he concluded that the petitioner established eligibility for this criterion 
without specifically addressing the evidence upon which this conclusion was based. Upon 
review, we find the director's decision must be withdrawn. 
The petitioner bases his eligibility for this criterion upon his published articles, citations to his 
published works by others, the creation of the website, Biorating.com, and reference letters. 
As it relates to the petitioner's reference to his published articles as evidence to meet this criterion, 
we note that the regulations contain a separate criterion regarding the authorship of published 
articles. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(vi). We will not presume that evidence relating to or even meeting 
the publication of scholarly articles criterion is presumptive evidence that the petitioner also meets 
this criterion. To hold otherwise would render meaningless the regulatory requirement that a 
petitioner meet at least three separate criteria. Therefore, while the petitioner's articles will not be 
considered under this criterion they will be addressed under the next criterion. 
We are also not persuaded by the petitioner's claim that his website is a contribution of major 
significance in his field. According to the brief paragraph attributed to the website in Science, the 
website opened in the fall of 2006, approximately two years prior to the filing of the petition on 
December 1,2008. Notably, as of the date of the article on June 29, 2007, while the purpose of the 
site is to collect experts' rating of nearly 250 antibodies, "[the petitioner] and his colleagues have 
provided most of the evaluations." Therefore, although we do not dispute that this website is an 
original contribution to his field, the fact that few others besides the petitioner and his colleagues 
appear to be using and sharing information on the website does not demonstrate that biorating.com 
has been of major significance to the field as required by the regulation. 
Finally, as it relates to the petitioner's submission of reference letters, we do not find the letters 
contain sufficient specific information to support a finding that the petitioner has made original 
contributions of major significance in his field. In this case, the majority of the reference letters 
are from individuals who have taught, worked with, or otherwise interacted with the petitioner. 
While such letters can provide important details about the petitioner's role in various projects, 
they cannot form the cornerstone of a successful extraordinary ability claim. Further, USCIS 
may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinion 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 of support from the petitioner's personal contacts 
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. Thus, the content of the writers' 
statements and how they became aware of the petitioner's reputation are important 
considerations. Even when written by independent experts, letters solicited by an alien in 
support of an immigration petition are of less weight than preexisting, independent evidence of 
original contributions of major significance that one would expect of an individual who has 
sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field. 
Many of the reference letters refer to the petitioner's articles and awards. However, as 
indicated above, the regulatory criteria are separate and distinct from one another. As the 
petitioner's claimed awards and scholarly articles are addressed under separate criteria, we will 
not further consider this evidence under this criterion. 
The remaining information contained in the reference letters, while describing the petitioner's 
research and generally referring to the importance of his research, fail to provide specific 
details to explain how his research has currently impacted his field so as to be considered 
contributions of major significance. We note that although the petitioner has documented 
citations to his published work which is reflective of the fact that the field has taken some 
notice of the petitioner's findings (as also indicated in his reference letters), the petitioner has 
failed to establish how those findings have significantly contributed to his field. For instance, 
- states that the petitioner's findings are "monumental because he will be able 
to control the production of [reactive oxygen species] ROS if these two genes are indeed 
responsible for the generation of ROS in the liver." goes on to state that the 
petitioner's research project "is imperative and successful completion . . . would identifi novel 
molecules for pharmaceutical targeting. . . [emphasis added]." With regard to the petitioner's 
second project, indicates that he expects improvements to be made as a result of the 
petitioner's research. ~iven descriptions in terms of future applicability and 
determinations that may occur at a later date, it appears that the petitioner's research, while - - 
original, is still ongoing and that the findings he has made are not currently being implemented - 
in his field. ~imil&l~ states that the petitioner "showed for the first 
time that a class of anti-diabetic drugs . . . has the capability of dramatically inhibiting skin 
tumor development in a mouse model." Again, while we acknowledge the originality of the 
petitioner's findings, does not indicate that anyone is currently applying the 
petitioner's research findings so as to establish that these findings have already impacted the 
field in a significant manner. Moreover,- concludes that the finding "may have a 
huge economic impact." Again, the petitioner's impact and contribution to his field are 
referred to in terms-of future possibiliti&. Other references such as and-1 
- also point to the significance of the petitioner's findings, noting that the - - 
petitioner has helped to provide for "a whole new strategy for skin cancer prevention." Again, 
however, the references fail to provide specific examples of how his findings are currently 
being used in the field. Accordingly, while we do not dispute the originality of the petitioner's 
research and findings, as well as the fact that the field has taken some notice of his work, the 
Page 10 
actual present impact of the petitioner's work has not been established. Rather, the petitioner's 
references appear to speculate about how the petitioner's findings may affect the field at some 
point in the future. 
Without documentation showing how the petitioner's work has impacted his field, that it has 
been unusually influential, or has otherwise risen to the level of original contributions of major 
significance, we cannot conclude that he meets this criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that he 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. 
In the director's decision, he concluded that the petitioner established eligibility for this criterion. 
A review of the record reflects that the petitioner submitted sufficient documentation 
demonstrating his authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. Therefore, we agree with the findings of the director. 
Accordingly, the petitioner established that he meets the plain language of this criterion. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then, if qualifying 
under three criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination. However, as 
discussed above, the petitioner established eligibility for only two of the criteria, of which three are 
required under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The petitioner falls far short of meeting any 
third criterion. 
Notwithstanding the above, a final merits determination 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[ir] field of 
endeavor," 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(2); 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. 
fj 204.5(h)(3). See Kazarian, 2010 WL 725317 at *3. 
Regarding the regulation at 8 C.F.R. S 204.5(h)(3)(i), 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 scholarships is limited to other students. Experienced experts in the field are not 
seeking scholarships, and experienced experts do not compete for fellowships and competitive 
postdoctoral appointments. Therefore, awards that are limited to students, like those claimed by 
the petitioner are not indicative of someone who is at the top of his or her field. 
Regarding original scientific contributions of major significance under 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
the petitioner has not demonstrated a "career of acclaimed work in the field as contemplated by 
Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). Based on an evaluation of the submitted 
evidence, the petitioner failed to establish that he "is one of that small percentage who have risen to 
the very top of the field." While we have acknowledged the petitioner's original contribution in the 
creation of the website, biorating.com, the petitioner has failed to establish the requisite sustained 
acclaim. As previously noted, at the time the petition was filed, it was "[the petitioner] and his 
colleagues [who had] provided most of the evaluations" for the site. Such evidence is not indicative 
of the sustained acclaim needed to establish eligibility for this classification. 
Finally, when compared to the accomplishments of individuals who submitted recommendation 
letters on the petitioner's behalf, it appears that the highest level of the petitioner's field is far above 
the level he has attained. While the petitioner's accomplishments may distinguish him from other 
postdoctoral fellows and research associates we will not narrow his field to others with his level of 
training and experience. For example, claims to be a member of the National 
Academy of Sciences and has authored at least 32 peer-reviewed publications. - 
Hursting claims to have been awarded the National Institute of Health (NIH) Merit Award for 
Leadership/Excellence in Obesity and Cancer Research as well as the NIH Merit Award for 
Leadership/Excellence in Cancer Training and Research, authored at least 87 peer-reviewed 
publications, and made at least 35 presentations regarding his research. -1 
claims to have published at least 150 peer-reviewed publications, 41 abstracts, and 28 published 
book chapters, serves on the editorial board of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology, as associate 
editor for Molecular Carcinogenesis and International Journal of Cancer Prevention, and has served 
as a journal reviewer for at least 17 publications. 
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 documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly 
demonstrate that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the 
small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
111. Conclusion 
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 and 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 AAO maintains plenary power to review each appeal on a de novo basis. 5 U.S.C. tj 557(b) 
("On appeal from or review of the initial decision, the agency has all the powers which it would 
have in making the initial decision except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule."); see 
Page 12 
also Janka v. US. Dept. of Transp., NTSB, 925 F.2d 1 147, 1 149 (9th Cir. 1991). The AAO's de 
novo authority has been long recognized by the federal courts. See, e.g., Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 
997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989). 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for 
the benefit sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. 
Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.