dismissed EB-1A Case: Biomedical Research

U.S. Deparlment of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave.. N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: Jli[ 2 I< ZdQ5 
EAC 03 180 5 1267 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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. 5 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. 
:\ ' 
- --A - '. <-'?*# - 
/Z,~ < 
'+\ 
J 
Robert ~:'%-nn, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 03 180 51267 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont 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. 3 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability in 
the sciences. The director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international 
acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the director erred by failing to issue a request for evidence in accordance with 
8 C.F.R. 3 103.2(b)(8). 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 response to such a request. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority Workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are aliens 
described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with Extraordinary Ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim 
and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive 
documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry to the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of expertise indicating that the 
individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 
3 204.5(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. 9 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that 
the petitioner must show that she has earned sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on May 29,2003, 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 Research Fellow in the 
Experimental Medicine Section, Oral Infection and Immunity Branch, National Institute of Dental and 
Craniofacial Research (NIDCR), National Institutes of Health (NIH). 
EAC 03 180 5 1267 
Page 3 
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, international recognized 
award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, at least three of which 
must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. 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 the field of endeavor. 
We note here that the plain wording of this criterion requires "nationally or internationally recognized prizes 
or awards for excellence in the field. The burden is on the petitioner to demonstrate the level of recognition 
and achievement associated with her awards. 
The petitioner submitted a June 1,2000 letter from ~r., Director, Fogarty International Center, 
NIH, stating: 
It is a pleasure to send you this official notification of your award as a postdoctoral Visiting Fellow in 
the NIH Visiting Program. This award will enable you to gain biomedical research experience at the 
NIH under the sponsorship of Dr. - Oral Infection and Immunity Branch, National 
Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research. 
The petitioner also submitted a February 6, 2002 letter from ~r~hief, Experimental 
Medicine Section, Oral Infection and Immunity Branch, NIDCR, NIH, stating: 
I am pleased to inform you that we will convert you from a Visiting Fellow to a Research Fellow once 
you have obtained and H1 visa. The Research Fellow position is a full-time position at the National 
Institutes of Health. It is awarded to people who have the appropriate scientific credentials (e.g. Ph.D.) 
and have demonstrated substantial skills and talent in the research laboratory. 
The preceding letters reflect the petitioner's selection for advanced scientific training opportunities at NIH 
under the direction of  rather than nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for 
excellence in the field. 
The petitioner also submitted a January 3, 1999 letter from the State University of New York at Buffalo 
(SUNYB) informing her of her selection for a temporary "postdoctoral research position." The letter 
indicates that a number of applicants applied for the position and it describes the future research that the 
petitioner would be expected to undertake. Selection for a temporary position such as this is not a national 
award for excellence in one's field, but, rather an indication that the petitioner obtained financial support for 
her ongoing scientific training and research. There is no indication that the petitioner faced competition from 
throughout her field, rather than her approximate age group within her field. 
Fellowships and postdoctoral research positions of the petitioner's kind are presented not to established 
scientists with active professional careers, but rather to those individuals seeking further their research 
training and experience. The petitioner cannot artificially restrict her field to exclude all those researchers 
EAC 03 180 5 1267 
Page 4 
who have long since completed their advanced scientific training and therefore do not compete for such 
temporary positions. Therefore, it is implausible for the petitioner to argue that her eligibility for postdoctoral 
training opportunities elevates her to a level above almost all others in her field. 
The petitioner also submitted a Second Prize certificate issued by "The Science & Technology Progression 
Committee of Guangdong Province" in 1998. On appeal, the petitioner submits a partial translation of 
information printed from this committee's website which discusses the "Guangdong provincial science and 
technology awards." It appears that certain sections pertaining to the award criteria as listed on the website 
were omitted from the translation. Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3), any document containing foreign 
language submitted to Citizenship and Immigratiotl Services (CIS) shall be accompanied by a full English 
language translation that the translator has certified as complete and accurate, and by the translator's 
certification that he or she is competent to translate from the foreign language into English. The petitioner's 
partial translation of the award criteria from the Guangdong Provincial Science and Technology Committee's 
website does not meet the requirements of 8 C.F.R. $ 103.2(b)(3). Nevertheless, information from the 
translated portions of the website clearly indicates that this award constitutes provincial recognition rather 
than national or international recognition. 
The petitioner submitted a certificate issued on August 11, 1996 (during her Ph.D. studies at the Shanghai 
Institute of Biochemistry and Cell Biology) by "The Military Science & Technology Progression Committee" 
stating: "In recognition of her outstanding contribution to the project 'Oral Alive Vaccine Against 
Plasmodium Falciparum,' this Second Prize is being issue to [the petitioner]." The record contains no 
information regarding the scope of this award or how many other scientists were similarly recognized. The 
certificate itself is numbered "96-1 1 1-4" suggesting multiple recipients. 
The petitioner submitted a "Certificate of Excellent Academic Paper" issued to her and two other scientists on 
August 5, 1996 (during her Ph.D. studies the Shanghai Institute of Biochemistry and Cell Biology) by the 
Chinese Journal of Parasitic Disease Control. The record contains no information regarding the scope of this 
award or how many other papers were similarly recognized. 
The significance and importance of the two certificates from 1996 are not self-evident. The petitioner offers 
no supporting evidence showing that these certificates constitute top honors in her field at the national or 
international level. We note here that section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act requires extensive documentation of 
sustained national or international acclaim. Pursuant to the statute, the petitioner must provide adequate 
evidence to establish that the certificates presented under this criterion enjoy significant national or 
international stature. Simply alleging that an award is nationally recognized cannot suffice to satisfy this 
criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in thejield for which classzjication is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines orjields. 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, the petitioner must show that 
the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for admission to membership. 
Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a given field, minimum education or 
EAC 03 180 5 1267 
Page 5 
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. In addition, it is clear from the regulatory language that members must be selected at the 
national or international level, rather than the local or regional level. Therefore, membership in an association 
that evaluates its membership applications at the local or regional chapter level would not qualify. Finally, 
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 evidence of her membership in the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the 
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). The petitioner's AAAS membership card 
reflects her "CATEGORY" as that of a "SUPPORTING" member. The petitioner also submitted general 
information about these associations printed from their websites. According this information, membership in 
the AAAS is "open to all" who apply. The information provided from the ADA's website did not include its 
official admission requirements. There is no indication that membership in these organizations required 
outstanding achievement in the petitioner's field or that she was evaluated by national or international experts 
in consideration of her membership. The record contains no evidence to establish that the preceding 
organizations require outstanding achievement of their members in the same manner as highly exclusive 
associations such as the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. 
Published materials about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in thejeld for which classiJication is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
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. To 
qualify as major media, the publication should have significant national or international distribution. 
On appeal, counsel states that the petitioner's work "has recently been cited in the prestigious journal 
Molecular Biology of the Cell" (September 2004). This evidence came into existence subsequent to the 
petition's filing date. A petitioner, however, must establish eligibility at the time of filing. See Matter of 
Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Comm. 1971). Counsel also notes that the petitioner's work was cited nine 
times "over a ten year period from 1994 - 2004" in Chinese journals. We note, however, that the petitioner 
and her work were not the primary subject of the articles that cited her findings. Scientific articles which cite 
the petitioner's work are primarily about the author's own work, not the petitioner's work. As such, they 
cannot be considered qualifying published material about the petitioner's work. We cannot ignore that the 
articles citing the petitioner's work similarly referenced numerous other authors. In the petitioner's field, it is 
the nature of research work to build upon work that has gone before. In some instances, prior work is 
expanded upon or supported. In other instances, prior work is superseded by the findings in current research 
work. In either case, the current researcher normally cites the work of the prior researchers. Clearly this is 
not the same thing as published material written about an individual's work in the field. This type of material 
does not discuss the merits of an individual's work, the individual's standing in the field, or any significant 
impact that his or her work has had on work in the field. Citations of the petitioner's work will be fully 
addressed under a separate criterion. 
EAC 03 180 51267 
Page 6 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an alliedfield of speciJication for which classlJication is sought. 
As previously noted, 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. For example, 
evaluating the work of accomplished professors as a member on a national panel of experts is of far greater 
probative value than evaluating students in one's research laboratory. 
On appeal, counsel argues that the petitioner's teaching and supervision of graduate and undergraduate students 
constitutes qualifying evidence under this criterion. Counsel cites a single sentence from a January 23,2003 letter 
from Dr- Associate Professor, Department of Pathology and Anatomical Sciences, SUM, 
as evidence that the petitioner "has worked in the role as a teacher of other scientists." Dr. - letter 
states: "[The petitioner] contributed to the training and nurturing of several students in my laboratory." 
We do not find that teaching or supervising "students" is tantamount to judging the work of others in one's field - - - -- 
for purposes of this criterion. Furthermore, in this instance, we note that ~rather than the 
petitioner, was the final authority on issues relating to the students in his laboratory. We further note that not 
one of the letters of support, including the letter from D-refers to the petitioner as serving as a 
"judge" of the work of established professionals. While a teacher, or a research scientist who teaches as a 
collateral duty, does evaluate the work of his or her pupils or trainees, this evaluation is commonplace and 
inherent to the process of teaching in a scientific laboratory. Contributing to the training of novice 
researchers does not, however, elevate the petitioner above almost all others in her field at the national or 
international level. We find no evidence to demonstrate that the petitioner has formally judged the work of 
established researchers (such as tenurled professors) who have long since completed their graduate or 
undergraduate studies. The petitioner's involvement in training "students" is not indicative of national or 
international acclaim and does not fulfill this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientrJic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signlJicance in the$eld. 
The petitioner submitted several letters in support of the petition. 
Dre petitioner's research supervisor at NIH, states: "The function of IA-2 . . . is not known. By 
use of a two-hybrid system, [the petitioner] has made important advances in our understanding of this protein 
and how it interacts with other proteins. These findings may have broad application to other diseases in 
addition to diabetes." 
~rrofessor of Biochemistry, Institute of Biochemistry and Cell Biology, Chinese Academy of 
Sciences, states: 
[The petitioner's] research work in my laboratory aimed to establish a model to study the cell cycle and 
use the model to screen human gene involved in cell cycle regulation. She successfully established a 
EAC 03 180 51267 
Page 7 
conditional lethal tri-mutant yeast model by knocking out three cell cycle regulator element genes . . . . 
This conditional model could be easily controlled by selection of sugar source in culture medium. . . . 
[The petitioner] was the first one to successfully establish this cell model in China. More importantly, 
using this model, she discovered three novel human genes that regulated the cell cycle. These three 
novel genes have been reinstated at NIH and published in the Genebank. Her outstanding research on 
this project has led to three scientific papers published in the top national or international journals . . . . 
We acknowledge ~r.bservations that the petitioner was among the first in China to establish one 
particular cell model and that she discovered three novel human genes. However, of far greater relevance in 
this proceeding is the importance to the overall field of the petitioner's discoveries. In this case, the petitioner 
has not provided adequate evidence showing that these findings were widely recognized throughout her field 
as a major contribution. The petitioner must show not only that her discoveries are important to her research 
mentors, but that her work is widely acclaimed throughout the greater research community as well. As noted 
by the director, "[aln individual with sustained national or international acclaim should be able to produce 
ample unsolicited materials reflecting that acclaim." An aggregate total of only nine cites to the petitioner's 
articles over a ten-year period is not an indication of sustained national acclaim as a researcher. 
Dr. observation that the petitioner's work led to three scientific publications may indicate that her 
research has yielded some useful and valid results; however, it is apparent that any scientific manuscript, in 
order to be accepted in for publication, must offer new and useful information to the pool of knowledge. It 
does not follow that every individual whose scholarly research is accepted for publication has made a major 
contribution in her field. Without extensive documentation showing that the petitioner's published findings 
have been unusually influential or highly acclaimed throughout the greater field, we cannot conclude that she 
meets this criterion. The petitioner's publications will be further addressed under the next criterion. 
~rthe petitioner's research supervisor at SUNYB, states: 
[The petitioner] was among the first to use a new screening system to isolate candidate FGFRl interacting 
proteins from the human brain cDNA library. She proved this method to be quicker, more efficient and 
more accurate than the traditional methods for detecting interactions among proteins. She had successfully 
cloned several important target proteins . . . . The most important was that she discovered two new nuclear 
partners of FGFRl . . . . [The petitioner] obtained the first evidence connecting FGFRl with RSKl in 
mammalian cells. She had also found that the interaction between these two proteins required both the 
FGFRl and RSKl kinase domains. This important finding has been critical for further development and 
progress of our project. It has established a new, truly revolutionary, molecular mechanism of FGFRl 
action, and has indicated its role in the pathogenesis of the glioma brain cancer. [The petitioner's] findings 
have a significant potential for the prevention strategy and for possible new treatments for the brain 
cancer. . . . The article describing [the petitioner's] discovery is in its final stage of preparation for the 
submission with [the petitioner] serving as a senior author. 
The record, however, contains no evidence showing that the findings discussed by  rer re 
published as of the petition's filing date. A petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing. See 
Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45 (Comm. 1971). The assertion that the petitioner's research results hold 
future promise is not adequate to establish that her findings are already nationally or internationally acclaimed 
EAC 03 180 51267 
Page 8 
as a major contribution. The visa classification sought by the petitioner is intended for aliens already at the 
top of their respective fields, rather than for those individuals progressing toward the top at some unspecified 
future time. 
The ~etitioner submitted additional letters of su~~ort from other researchers who ~rovide similar information L L 
to th'at of ~rs.nd With regard to the witnesses of record, many of them discuss 
what may, might, or could one day result from the petitioner's work, rather than how her past efforts rise to 
the level of a contribution of major significance. In the present case, w-e cannot conclude that petitioner's past 
contributions far exceed those of other capable biomedical researchers. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that Dr. 
v!F 
ssociate Professor of Pediatrics and Genetics at the 
Louisiana State University Health Sciences enter, has never personally met with [the petitioner]," but the 
fact remains that D of the University of Tokyo, and Professor Prabhakar of 
the University of Illinois at Chicago all indicate in their letters that they have collaborated wi 
the petitioner's supervisor at NIH.' If the petitioner's reputation is mostly limited to her affiliated institutions 
and her current supervisor's immediate collaborators, then we cannot conclude that she has achieved national 
or itlternational acclaim. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the$eld, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The petitioner initially provided evidence of her authorship of articles appearing in publications such as 
Current Microbiology, Chinese Bulletin of Zfe Sciences, Acta Biochimica et Biophysica Sinica, and the 
Chinese Journal of Parasitic Disease Control. 
We do not find that publication of scholarly articles is presumptive evidence of sustained national or 
international acclaim; we must also consider the greater scientific community's reaction to those articles. 
When judging the influence and impact that the petitioner's work has had, the very act of publication is not as 
reliable a gauge as is the citation history of the published works. If a given article in a prestigious journal 
(such as the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA.) attracts the attention of other 
researchers, those researchers will cite the source article in their own published work, in much the same way 
that the petitioner herself has cited sources in her own publications. Numerous independent citations would 
provide firm evidence that other researchers have been influenced by the petitioner's work and are familiar 
with it. If, on the other hand, there are few or no citations of an alien's work, suggesting that that work has 
gone largely unnoticed by the greater field, then it is reasonable to conclude that the alien's work is not 
nationally or internationally acclaimed. 
On appeal, the petitioner provides evidence showing that she published an article in The Journal of Biological 
Chemistry in 2004 and that her 2002 article in Current Microbiology was cited one time in 2004. This 
evidence, however, came into existence subsequent to the petition's filing date. See Matter of Katigbak at 45. 
New circumstances that did not exist as of the filing date cannot retroactively establish eligibility as of that date. 
1 The letter of support from Dr. Lan states: "I have collaborated with [the petitioner's] mentor, Dr. for 
the past 12 years." 
EAC 03 180 51267 
Page 9 
The petitioner's appellate submission included a citation history showing that four of the articles she co- 
authored were cited an aggregate total of nine times in various Chinese j~urnals.~ While the citation indices 
provided by the petitioner demonstrate a small degree of interest in her published work, she has not shown that 
an aggregate total of nine citations over a research career spanning more than a decade elevates her to a level 
above almost all others in her field at ithe national or international level. We accept that the petitioner has 
authored some published papers, but the weight of this evidence is diminished by a lack of evidence showing that 
any of her published findings are widely influential. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
On appeal, counsel argues that the petitioner's conference presentations satisfy this criterion. The AAO has 
consistently found, however, that this particular criterion applies to the visual arts rather than scientific 
research. In the fields of science and medicine, acclaim is generally not established by the mere act of 
presenting one's work at a scientific conference. 
In regard to the petitioner's conference presentations, we note that the record contains no documentation 
demonstrating that the presentation of one's work is unusual in the petitioner's field or that the invitation to 
present at conferences where the petitioner spoke was a privilege extended to only a few top researchers. 
Participation in scientific conferences and symposia of the petitioner's kind is routine and expected in the 
medical research community. Many professional fields regularly hold conferences and symposiums to 
present new work, discuss new findings, and to network with other professionals. These conferences are 
promoted and sponsored by professional associations, businesses, educational institutions, and government 
agencies. Participation in such events, however, does not elevate the petitioner above almost all others in her 
field at the national or international level. The record contains no evidence showing that the petitioner's 
conference presentations commanded an unusual level of attention in comparison to those of other conference 
participants or that she has served as a keynote speaker at a national or international scientific conference. 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate that the 
alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim, is one of the small percentage who has risen to 
the very top of the field of endeavor, and that the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. The petitioner in this case has failed to demonstrate that she 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. 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished herself to such an extent that she may 
be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the 
very top of her field. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set her significantly above 
almost all others in her field at the 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 greatest number of times any single article authored by the petitioner was cited was four. 
EAC 03 180 51267 
Page 10 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 
U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.