dismissed EB-1A Case: Biomedical Research

idd@ing data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Oflce ofAdministrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PUBLIC COPY n 
- 
FEB 0 1 2010 
FILE: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 
WAC 08 001 50282 
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. $ 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). 
prry Rhew v 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas 
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. 8 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 qualifj for classification as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. 
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 high 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. 8 204.5(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. 
This petition, filed on July 27, 2007, 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 
Page 3 
scientist in the De~artment of Immunologv and Infectious Diseases, Harvard School of Public 
Health (HSPH).   he petitioner has workedin the laboratory of - 
~rofessor of Immunology at the HSPH and Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School, 
since 200 1. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally 
recognized award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, 
at least three of which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to 
qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. A petitioner, however, cannot establish eligibility for this 
classification merely by submitting evidence that simply relates to at least three 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. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3).' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in thejeld of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted documentation indicating that he was among four recipients of a "Career 
Development Award" from the Dana-FarberIHarvard Cancer Center (DF/HCC) Specialized Program 
of Research Excellence [SPORE] in Multiple Myeloma in 2004-2005. Information submitted by the 
petitioner about this Career Development Award states: 
The goal of the Career Development Program of our Myeloma SPORE is to . . . establish a 
formal process for the identification, selection, funding, and mentoring of individuals 
pursuing careers in the study of the basic and clinical aspects of myeloma. These awards will 
facilitate the development of physicians, physician scientists, clinical investigators, and 
scientists in training within the Myeloma SPORE Program towards faculty status. Thus, 
candidates will be junior faculty or fellows and postdoctoral fellows within the various 
training programs across DF/HCC and participating institutions . . . . It is our goal to attract, 
mentor, and assure the success of several candidates within the timeframe of this SPORE 
Success will be defined as the development of physician/scientists in training towards careers 
as independent investigators. 
The petitioner's selection for an award limited by its terms to "junior faculty or fellows and 
postdoctoral fellows within the various training programs across DFIHCC and participating 
institutions" is not an indication that he is among "that small percentage who have risen to the very 
top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). There is no indication that the petitioner faced 
' The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
Page 4 
competition from throughout his field, rather than competition limited to "physiciadscientists in 
training" affiliated with the DFIHCC. Receipt of an award limited to those in the developmental 
stage of their career offers no meaningful comparison between the petitioner and experienced 
scientists in the field who have long since completed their advanced research training and who have 
already achieved "independent investigator" status. 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. For comparison, USCIS has 
long held that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the 
"extraordinary ability" standard. See, e.g., Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Cornmr. 
1994); 56 Fed. Reg. at 60899.~ Likewise, it does not follow that recipients of a "Career Development 
Award" in the training phase of their career should necessarily qualify for an extraordinary ability 
employment-based immigrant visa. To find otherwise would contravene the regulatory requirement at 
8 C.F.R. 3 204.5(h)(2) that this visa category be reserved for "that small percentage of individuals that 
have risen to the very top of their field of endeavor." 
Moreover, the petitioner's Career Development Award from the DFIHCC reflects institutional 
recognition rather than a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the 
field of endeavor. On appeal, the petitioner submits a September 20, 2007 press release entitled 
' and DF/HCC Ovarian Cancer SPORE Honored at 'Teal Ribbon' Awards Ceremony" 
and general information about SPORES from the internet sites of the DFIHCC and the National Cancer 
1nstGte. The preceding documentation does not mention the petitioner's 2004-2005 Career 
Development Award from the DF/HCC or demonstrate that his award meets the requirements of this 
criterion. The plain language of the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. $204.5(h)(3)(i) specifically 
requires that petitioner's awards be nationally or internationally recognized in the field of endeavor and 
it is his burden to establish every element of this criterion. In this instance, there is no documentary 
evidence demonstrating that the petitioner's Career Development Award is recognized beyond the 
DFIHCC and therefore commensurate with a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award 
for excellence in the field. 
The petitioner's appellate submission includes a May 29, 2008 e-mail indicating that he received a 
"Scientist Development Grant" from the American Heart Association. This grant was awarded to 
the petitioner subsequent to the petition's filing date. A petitioner, however, must establish 
While we acknowledge that a district court's decision is not binding precedent, we note that in Matter of Racine, 1995 
WL 153319 at *4 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 16, 1995), the court stated: 
[Tlhe plain reading of the statute suggests that the appropriate field of comparison is not a comparison of 
Racine's ability with that of all the hockey players at all levels of play; but rather, Racine's ability as a 
professional hockey player within the NHL. This interpretation is consistent with at least one other court in this 
district, Grimson v. INS, No. 93 C 3354, (N.D. Ill. September 9, 1993)' and the definition of the term 8 C.F.R. 
4 204.5(h)(22 and the discussion set forth in the preamble at 56 Fed. Reg. 60898-99. 
Although the present case arose within the jurisdiction of another federal judicial district and circuit, the court's 
reasoning indicates that USCIS' interpretation of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2) is reasonable. 
Page 5 
eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. 55 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 
49 (Regl. Cornmr. 1971). Accordingly, the AAO will not consider this 2008 grant approval in this 
proceeding. Nevertheless, the grant represents financial support for the petitioner's proposed 
research project rather than a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence 
in the field of endeavor. We note that research grants simply fund a scientist's work. A substantial 
amount of scientific research is funded by research grants from a variety of public and private 
sources. Every successful scientist engaged in research, of which there are hundreds of thousands, 
receives fhding fiom somewhere. Obviously the past achievements of the researcher are a factor in 
grant applications. The funding institution has to be assured that the investigator is capable of 
performing the proposed research. Nevertheless, a research grant is principally designed to fund future 
research, and not to honor or recognize past achievement. Thus, we cannot conclude that securing 
research grants equates to receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for 
excellence in the field of endeavor. 
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 initially submitted evidence of his "Trainee" membership in the American 
Association of Immunologists (AAI). There is no evidence (such as membership rules or bylaws) 
showing the admission requirements for the AAI's "Trainee" category. With regard to the 
petitioner's "Trainee" membership, we cannot conclude that such a designation is 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). As discussed previously, 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. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a May 20, 2009 letter fiom the American Society for Biochemistry 
and Molecular Biology (ASBMB) stating that he was "accepted to Regular membership" and that his 
membership would become active after his payment was processed. As previously discussed, 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. at 49. Accordingly, the AAO will not consider the petitioner's 2009 
ASBMB membership in this proceeding. Nevertheless, the admission requirements for the ASBMB 
submitted on appeal state that Regular membership is "[alvailable to any individual who holds a 
doctoral degree and who has published, since the receipt of a doctoral degree, at least one paper in a 
refereed journal devoted to biochemistry and molecular biology. The applicant must also be 
sponsored by one Regular member of the Society." As publication is inherent to the petitioner's 
research field and to doctoral training programs, we cannot conclude that holdin a doctorate and 
publishing a single paper in a refereed journal equate to outstanding achievements. B 
In this case, there is no evidence showing that AAI and the ASBMB require outstanding 
achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in the 
petitioner's field or an allied one. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this 
criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in the jeld 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. An alien would not earn acclaim at the national level from a local publication. Some 
newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally serve a particular locality but would qualify as 
major media because of significant national distribution, unlike small local community papers.4 
The petitioner submitted citation indices from IS1 Web of Knowledge demonstrating hundreds of 
cites to his published articles. Regarding the scientific articles that merely reference the petitioner's 
published work, we note that the plain language of this regulatory criterion requires that the published 
material be "about the alien." In this case, the articles citing to the petitioner's work are primarily about 
For LLBiological Scientists," the Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2010-1 1 Edition (accessed at 
htt~:Nwww.bls.~ovloco/), states that a "solid record of published research is essential in obtaining a permanent position 
involving basic research." See h~:lldata.bls.~ovlcgi-bin/vrint.pVoco/ocosO47.h, accessed on January 13, 2010, copy 
incorporated into the record of proceeding. The handbook also provides information about the nature of employment as a 
postsecondary teacher (professor) and the requirements for such a position. See h~:lldata.bls.~ovlcni- 
bin~vrint.vWoco/ocos066.htm, accessed on January 13, 2010, copy incorporated into the record of proceeding. The 
handbook expressly states that faculty members are pressured to perform research and publish their work and that the 
professor's research record is a consideration for tenure. Moreover, the doctoral programs training students for faculty 
positions require a dissertation, or written report on original research. Id. This information reveals that publishing original 
research, whether arising from research at a university or private employer, does not set the researcher apart from faculty in 
that researcher's field or otherwise equate to outstanding achievements. 
Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. For example, 
an article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax County, Virginia, for 
instance, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
Page 7 
the authors' work, not the footnoted material identifying the petitioner. With regard to this criterion, a 
footnoted reference to the alien's work without evaluation is of minimal probative value. Further, we 
note that the articles citing to the petitioner's work similarly referenced numerous other authors. The 
submitted citations to the petitioner's work do not discuss the merits of his work, his standing in the 
field, any significant impact that his work has had on the field, or any other aspects of his work so as 
to be considered published material about the petitioner as required by this criterion. Instead, these 
citations are more relevant to the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5@)(3)(vi) and will be 
addressed there. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits an April 2003 press release posted on the internet site of Nature 
Immunology entitled "Anti-body producing cells need stress." This press release discusses research 
findings reported in a Nature Immunology article authored by the petitioner and five others, but it is not 
about the petitioner. Nevertheless, a press release is a written communication directed at the news 
media for the purpose of announcing information claimed as having news value rather than 
"published material . . . in professional or major trade publications or other major media." We cannot 
conclude that a press release, which is not the result of independent media reportage and which is sent 
to journalists in order to encourage them to develop articles on a subject, meets the plain language of 
this regulatory criterion. 
The petitioner submits an October 15, 2004 review article in Science entitled "Insulin Resistance Takes 
a Trip Through the ER." This article cites to an article coauthored by the petitioner and to nine 
additional research articles authored by other scientists, but it does not specifically mention the 
petitioner. 
The petitioner submits a June 12, 2008 article by of HealthDay News entitled 
"Scientists Discover Protein Involved in Fat Production" that was posted on the internet sites of US. 
News & World Report, The Washington Post, MedicineNet.com, and healthfinder.gov. The 
petitioner also submits a June 14, 2008 article entitled "Unexpected Finding of Molecule's Dual 
Role in Mice May Open New Avenue To Cholesterol Production" posted at 
medicalnewstoday.com,5 but the article only mentions his name in passing. The petitioner's 
appellate submission also includes articles posted on the Harvard School of Public Health internet 
site on July 3, 2008 and September 12, 2008, but this material is not primarily about the petitioner. 
The petitioner also submits a September 5, 2008 article posted on the internet site of Dmgs.com, but 
the article only mentions the petitioner's name in passing. 
The petitioner submits a September 5, 2008 preview article in Cell entitled "Unresolved ER Stress 
Inflames the Intestine." This article cites to two articles coauthored by the petitioner and to seven 
additional research articles authored by other scientists, but it is not about the petitioner. The petitioner 
also submits a February 12, 2009 article in New England Journal of Medicine entitled "Inflammatory 
Bowel Disease, Stress, and the Endoplasmic Reticulum." The article cites to two articles coauthored by 
the petitioner and to three additional research articles authored by other scientists, but it is not about the 
petitioner. The petitioner's appellate submission also includes an article in the November 2008 issue 
The article was adapted from an original press release issued by the Harvard School of Public Health. 
Page 8 
of Nature Reviews Immunology entitled "Mismanaged ER stress and inflammation." This article 
discusses research findings published by the petitioner and his collaborators, but it only mentions his 
name in a citation at the conclusion of the article. The petitioner also submits a June 13, 2008 review 
article in Science entitled "Unfolding Lipid Metabolism" that previews a research article by the 
petitioner included in the same issue. Finally, the petitioner submits a seven-sentence piece entitled 
"Unfolded liver" in the July 2008 issue of Nature Medicine. 
The preceding articles from June 2008 and later post-date the filing of this petition. As previously 
discussed, 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. at 49. Accordingly, the AAO will not consider material published 
subsequent to July 27,2007 in this proceeding. 
In light of the above, 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 alliedfield of specijication for which classijication is 
sought. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(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." The evidence submitted 
to meet this criterion, or any criterion, must be indicative of or consistent with sustained national or 
international acclaim6 A lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory 
definition of "extraordinary ability" as "a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of 
that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. 
$ 204.5(h)(2). 
In her July 25,2007 letter accompanying the states: 
Another indication of [the petitioner's] extraordinary abilities includes receiving invitations to 
review the research of others from his scientific peer community. He supervised a research 
assistant and currently provides guidance for postdoctoral fellows in the laboratory. [The 
petitioner] participated in the review of manuscripts by other scientists for many journals, such 
as Immunity . . . . 
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." With regard to the 
peti%oner7s supervision of a research associate and his guidance of postdoctoral fellows in the 
iaboratory of at the HSPH, we cannot conclude that such supervisory duties equate to 
judging the work of others in the field for purposes of this criterion. For instance, internal review of 
We note that although not binding precedent, this interpretation has been upheld in Yasar v. DHS, 2006 WL 778623 *9 
(S.D. Tex. March 24, 2006) and All Pro Cleaning Services v. DOL et al., 2005 WL 4045866 *11 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 26, 
2005). 
Page 9 
student work is not indicative of or consistent with national or international acclaim and, thus, cannot 
serve to meet this criterion. See, e.g., Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1035 (9h Cir. 2009). 
Moreover, we note that rather than the petitioner, is the final authority on issues 
relating to the researchers in her laboratory. We further note that not one of the letters of support, 
including the letter from refers to the petitioner as serving as a "judge" of the work of 
- - 
others in-the field. While the petitioner may supervise and guide subordinate researchers within the 
confines of laboratory, such duties are inherent to his position and are not 
commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of his field. 
~e~ardin~ claim that the petitioner "participated in the review of manuscripts by other 
scientists for many journals," the record does not include evidence originating from the editorial staff of 
those journals to corroborate assertion. Going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure 
Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). A petition must be filed with any initial 
evidence required by the regulation. 8 C.F.R. 8 103.2(b)(l). The nonexistence or other 
unavailability of primary evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. 8 103.2(b)(2)(i). 
According to the same regulation, only where the petitioner demonstrates that primary evidence does 
not exist or cannot be obtained may the petitioner rely on secondary evidence and only where secondary 
evidence is demonstrated to be unavailable may the petitioner rely on affidavits. The petitioner has not 
established that evidence of the petitioner's manuscript review participation does not exist or cannot 
be obtained. Further, letter of suppoi does no; equate to secondary evidence or an 
affidavit. 
Nevertheless, peer review of manuscripts is a routine element of the process by which articles are 
selected for publication in scientific journals. Occasional participation in the peer review process 
does not automatically demonstrate that an individual has sustained national or international acclaim 
at the very top of his field. Reviewing manuscripts is recognized as a professional obligation of 
researchers who publish themselves in scientific journals. Normally a journal's editorial staff will 
enlist the assistance of numerous professionals in the field who agree to review submitted papers. It 
is common for a publication to ask several reviewers to review a manuscript and to offer comments. 
The publication's editorial staff may accept or reject any reviewer's comments in determining 
whether to publish or reject submitted papers. Without evidence pre-dating the filing of the petition 
that sets the petitioner apart from others in his field, such as evidence that he has received and 
completed independent requests for review from a substantial number of journals or served in an 
editorial position for a distinguished journal in the same manner as his  reference^,^ we cannot 
conclude that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientiJic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major significance in thejeld. 
7 For example, Dr. Vijay Kuchroo "is on the Editorial Boards of the journals Autoimmunity and Journal of Experimental 
Medicine." Further, Dr. Gregory Petsko is "an editor of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Trends in 
Biochemical Sciences, and . . . a founding editor of PloS Biology." 
Page 10 
The petitioner submitted letters of support discussing his original research contributions. We cite 
representative examples here. 
- Professor of Microbiology and Biochemistry & Molecular Biophysics at 
Columbia University College of Physicians, states: 
[The of Cell Biology and Immunology are truly 
remarkable. In , [the petitioner] investigated the mechanisms of B 
cell differentiation into the antibody producing plasma cells. . . . [The petitioner's] 
contribution to the field of Immunology includes his discovery of the action mechanisms for 
the transcription factor, XBP-1, which is a master regulator of the gene expression in plasma 
cells. . . . [The petitioner] has shown that plasma cells require machinery to make 
extraordinary amount of antibody molecules, and XBP-1 is critical in this process. . . . In 
subsequent researches . . . [the petitioner] systematically analyzed the genes that are 
regulated by XBP-1 to clarify the action mechanism of XBP-1. [The petitioner] further 
investigated the role of XBP-1 in animal physiology, which culminated with the conclusion 
that XBP-1 plays an important role in professional secretory cells, increasing the capacity of 
the ER to handle cargo proteins, and therefore is essential for both the survival and function 
of these cells. 
[The petitionerl's another [sic] important scientific achievement is to demonstrate the 
potential mechanism of a novel class of cancer drug targeting cellular protein degradation 
machinery, proteasome. . . . [Blortezomib, a proteasome inhibitor, was proven to be 
effective in phase 111111 trials in patients with multiple myeloma and non-Hodgkin's 
lymphoma. [The petitioner] clearly showed that proteasome inhibitors disrupt the XBP-1 
activation, which would leads to the death of the tumor cells. This discovery also suggested 
that compounds targeting XBP-1 pathway would be promising therapeutic agents for the 
treatment of multiple myeloma. 
- Professor of Medicine and Honorary Consultant Physician, King's College 
London, University of London, states: "[The petitioner] had done some of the best research on the 
unfolded protein response (UPR) in this field. He has described in detail the role of the transcription 
factor XBP-1 and has discovered a number of roles for these pathways in disease processes . . . ." 
Professor, Department of Molecular Cell Biology, Sungkyunkwan University 
School of Medicine, South Korea, states: 
[The petitioner] discovered the function of a gene that plays an essential role in the ER stress 
response. . . . He also suggested a novel strategy to develop anti-cancer drugs by targeting 
the ER stress response. 
[The petitioner] has made significant contributions to the field to understand the importance 
of the ER stress response in various human diseases . . . . 
Page 11 
professor and Chair, Department of Biochemistry, 
Brandeis University, is an elected member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. - 
states: 
Among [the petitioner's] seminal discoveries is the identification of a new gene that is 
critical in controlling diseases such as atherosclerosis; still another is a startling new insight 
into the origins of the disease known as inflammatory bowel disease, a cause of suffering for 
millions of people in the world. [The petitioner] is one of the world experts on the unfolded 
protein response (UPR), a fundamental process in all cells of higher organisms. Because of 
[the petitioner's] work, we now know that the UPR is a central regulator of fat synthesis in 
the liver, and is a major factor that links obesity, action, and type 2 diabetes. 
Professor of Neurology at Harvard Medical School and- 
Chair in Inflammatory Diseases at the Center for Neurological Diseases, Brigharn and Women's 
Hospital, Boston, states: 
One of [the petitioner's] contributions to the field is to demonstrate that the endoplasmic 
stress response is activated during the plasma cell differentiation and XBP-1 capacitates the 
cell to produce large amounts of antibodies by inducing endoplasmic reticulum (ER) 
chaperone genes responsible for the maturation of antibodies in the ER. 
[The petitioner] further showed that XBP-1 is also required for the development and function 
of other secretory organs, such as the pancreas, that produce large amounts of digestive 
enzymes to the small intestine, conclusively demonstrating the essential role of XBP-1 in the 
cellular protein secretion in general. This discovery . . . defined the role of XBP-1 in the . . . 
secretory cells. Recently, he has also generated a mouse strain that lacks XBP-1 in the 
gastrointestinal tracts. 
In support of the preceding experts' statements, the petitioner submitted citation indices from IS1 
Web of Knowledge demonstrating hundreds of cites to his published articles. The citation records 
submitted initially and on appeal are solid evidence that other researchers have been influenced by 
the petitioner's work and are familiar with it. This evidence corroborates the experts' statements that 
the petitioner has made original contributions of major significance in his field. The record reflects 
that the petitioner's contributions are important not only to the institutions where he has worked, but 
throughout the greater field as well. Leading scientists from around the world have acknowledged 
the value of the petitioner's work and its major significance in the biomedical field. Accordingly, 
the petitioner has established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the Jield, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
A88 282 118 
Page 12 
The petitioner submitted evidence of his co-authorship of numerous articles appearing in 
publications such as Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Cancer Research, Science, 
Immunity, Molecular and Cellular ~iilo~~, and Nature Immunology. The petitioner also submitted 
evidence of his conference presentations and abstracts. As previously discussed, the record includes 
evidence of hundreds of articles that cite to his work. 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 this 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. 
On appeal, counsel argues that the petitioner performed in a leading or critical role for the HSPH. 
The record adequately demonstrates that the HSPH has a distinguished reputation. The petitioner 
submitted letters of support fiom and others discussing his work in her laboratory, but 
there is no evidence showing that his role was leading or critical for the HSHP as a whole. The 
petitioner's evidence does not demonstrate how his role differentiated him from the other researchers 
in the HSPH, let alone its tenured professors and principal investigators. For example, the petitioner 
has not submitted an organizational chart for the HSPH showing where his position falls within the 
institutional hierarchy. The documentation submitted by the petitioner does not establish that he was 
responsible for the success or standing of the HSPH to a degree consistent with the meaning of "leading 
or critical 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 regulatory criteria, three of which are required 
to establish eligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 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 national or international acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 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. 5 204.5(h)(2). A comparison of the 
petitioner's position and achievements with those of his references, including his superiors at the 
HSPH, indicates that the very top of his field is a level above his present level of achievement. For 
example,is a Professor of Immunology at the HSPH, a member of the U.S. National 
Academy of Sciences, and has served as President of the American Association of Immunologists. 
is a Professor of Molecular Immunology and Director of the Program in 
Biological Sciences in Public Health at the. Dr. has won top awards such as the Max 
Planck Prize and the Pfizer Award of the American Society, serves in editorial positions 
for distinguished journals, is a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and Chairs the 
A88 282 118 
Page 13 
Department of Biochemistry at Brandeis University. Thus, it appears that the highest level of the 
petitioner's field is well above the level he has presently attained. 
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 AAO maintains plenary power to review each appeal on a de novo basis. 5 U.S.C. 9 557(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 also Janka v. 
US. Dept. of Transp., NTSB, 925 F.2d 1147, 1149 (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. 9 1361. Here, 
that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.