dismissed EB-1A Case: Biomedical Research

US. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwamnted 
PUBLIC COPY 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: JAN 2 gl 21108 
LIN 07 197 51073 
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: 
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. 
U 
sbert P. Wiernann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in the sciences, pursuant to 
section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1 153(b)(l)(A). 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, the petitioner submits a personal statement and additional evidence. For the reasons 
discussed below, while we withdraw the director's adverse finding regarding the significance of the 
petitioner's publication record, we uphold the director's overall conclusion that the petitioner has not 
demonstrated his eligibility for the exclusive classification sought. 
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. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) 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, 60898-9 (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. 5 204.5(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. fj 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It 
should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that he has sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top level. 
Page 3 
This petition seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as a biomedical 
researcher. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 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. 
On appeal, the petitioner notes that he submitted letters from a Nobel Laureate and a member of the 
National Academy of Sciences and that their opinions "can not be doubted or challenged at all." The 
letters all focus on one criterion, contributions of major significance, set forth at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3)(v). The director concluded that the petitioner meets this criterion based on the letters, 
supported by the petitioner's publication and citation record. Thus, it does not appear that the director 
ignored the reference letters. We concur with the determination that the petitioner meets that criterion. 
To hold that meeting one criterion creates a presumption of eligibility, however, would be to render 
meaningless the statutory requirement for "extensive documentation" and the regulatory requirement 
that an alien meet at least three of the regulatory criteria. For the reasons discussed below, we find that 
the petitioner meets only one other criterion, the scholarly articles criterion. As will be explained 
further, the evidence falls far short of meeting any other criterion. 
The remaining criteria follow. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
Initially, the petitioner asserted that his graduate/postdoctoral travel award fiom the American Society 
for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (ASBMB) and a Japanese research grant serve to meet this 
criterion. The petitioner submitted a Certificate of Participation in the ASBMB "GraduatelPostdoctoral 
Travel Award Program." The petitioner also submitted a copy of his research grant from the Sasakawa 
Health Science Foundation (SHSF). 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner asserted that the travel grant 
was only awarded to a limited number of attendees and that the recipients of these grants "represent the 
next generation of researchers in the global scientific community." The petitioner firther asserted that 
the research grant considers the applicant's past achievements that the petitioner used part of the grant 
money to 
 expensive books. The petitioner submitted a letter from 
 ~eeiin~s 
Manager at ASBMB, asserting that ASBMB issues a "limited number" of travel awards in the 
graduate/postdoctoral category "to help defiay travel related costs associated with attendees' presenting 
a current research abstract at the annual meeting." 
The director concluded that the petitioner had not established that his awards were nationally or 
internationally recognized. On appeal, the petitioner submits additional documentation regarding the 
entity that issued his research grant, SHSF. The petitioner asserts that the grantees must be Ph.D. 
students, postdoctoral researchers or visiting scholars; be recommended by a mentor or principal 
investigator at the hosting Japanese institution and have substantial research achievements. The 
petitioner Mher asserts that the applications are carefully considered and only a "small percentage" of 
the applications are approved for funding. The English portion of the website materials submitted does 
not support the petitioner's assertions. The petitioner did not submit a complete certified translation of 
the foreign language website materials as required under 8 C.F.R. 9 103.2(b)(3). The petitioner also 
submits the detailed statement of his expenses, asserting that they covered personal expenses such as 
textbooks. The list of expenses, however, reveals that they all related to his project, albeit travel and 
reference materials such as textbooks. While the expenses confirm that the research grant also included 
a stipend to assist with the costs of coming to Japan and pursuing the proposed research, they do not 
suggest that the petitioner received a cash award in recognition of past achievements independent of 
future obligations. 
The SHSF research grant simply funded the petitioner's research and incidental costs. Every successful 
scientist engaged in research, of which there are hundreds of thousands, receives funding from 
somewhere. Obviously the past achievements of the principal investigator are a factor in grant 
proposals. The funding institution has to be assured that the investigator is capable of performing the 
proposed research. Nevertheless, a research grant is principally designed to fund future research, and 
not to honor or recognize past achievement. Moreover, even if we accepted the petitioner's 
unsupported list of requirements for the grantees, those requirements suggest that grantees work under 
mentors and principal investigators and, thus, are not mentors and principal investigators themselves. 
Where the most experienced and renowned members of the field are not eligible to compete for grant 
money, the grantees cannot be presumed to be within the small percentage that has risen to the top of 
the field. 
Competition for graduate/postdoctoral travel grants is limited to graduates and recent graduates. The 
most experienced experts in the field do not compete for these stipends. Thus, they cannot establish 
that a petitioner is one of the small percentage who has risen to the top of his field. 
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 classijkation is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national 
or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
Initially, the petitioner claimed to meet this criterion through his prior membership in the American 
Heart Association (AHA), ASBMB, the American Society for Cell Biology, the American Diabetes 
Association and the Japan Diabetes Society (JDS), although he concedes that the annual fees for these 
associations have caused him to let his memberships lapse. The petitioner remained, however, a 
member of the North American Association for the Study of Obesity (NAASO). The petitioner 
submitted his membership card for NAASO. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner asserted that he was 
submitting evidence regarding some of his past memberships and evidence regarding NAASO's 
requirements for membership in the fellow category. The petitioner does not assert that he is a fellow 
and the petitioner's membership card, submitted initially, does not indicate that the petitioner is a 
fellow. The director concluded that the evidence was insufficient to meet this criterion. 
On appeal, the petitioner resubmitted his membership card for NAASO, which does not identify him as 
a fellow; the petitioner's 1998 membership card for JDS and foreign language Internet materials about 
JDS. The petitioner asserts that the Internet materials state that JDS members must be six-year medical 
school graduates or master degree holders, be first author on an article appearing in a journal with 
international scope and obtain a reference from a JDS board member. The petitioner did not submit a 
complete certified translation of the Internet materials as required under 8 C.F.R. tj 103.2(b)(3). Even if 
we accepted the petitioner's assertions about JDS membership, completed education, authorship of an 
article and a reference letter are not outstanding achievements. 
In addition, the petitioner submitted an undated letter inviting the petitioner to apply for membership in 
the American Society for Nutrition (ASN). While the letter indicates that over eighty years, ASN has 
had three Nobel Laureates as members, nothing in the letter suggests that membership is limited to 
those with outstanding achievements. Rather, ASN appears to be a professional society that provides 
forums for sharing recent research in nutrition. Regardless, the record lacks evidence that the petitioner 
had been accepted to membership in ASN as of the date of filing, the date as of which the petitioner 
must demonstrate his eligibility. See 8 C.F.R. tj 103.2(b)(12); Matter ofhlatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 
(Regl. Cornrnr. 197 1). 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not demonstrated 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 field for which classification is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author ofthe material, and any necessary translation. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires that the published material 
be "about" the petitioner. Initially, the petitioner submitted evidence downloaded from the "Web of 
Science" listing the citations of seven of the petitioner's articles. In response to the director's request 
for additional evidence, in which the director acknowledged the submission of citation evidence, the 
petitioner asserted that the citations were sufficient to meet this criterion. The director concluded that 
the articles citing the petitioner's work were not primarily "about" the petitioner. The petitioner does 
not contest this conclusion on appeal and we concur with the director. 
Evidence of the alienS participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge ofthe work of 
others in the same or an alliedfield ofspecifcation for which classification is sought. 
The director concluded that an invitation to review manuscripts submitted for publication could not 
serve to meet this criterion. As noted by the petitioner on appeal, however, the petitioner did not 
submit such evidence. Rather, he submitted an invitation to present his as of yet unpublished research 
at a conference. We will consider that invitation under a more appropriate criterion below. It remains, 
however, that the record lacks evidence to meet this criterion. 
Evidence ofthe alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The petitioner submitted a book chapter, eight published articles and several abstracts and conference 
presentations. As stated above, the petitioner was also invited to give a 10-minute presentation on his 
unpublished research at the 2006 Gordon Research Conference. In response to the director's request 
for additional evidence, the petitioner asserts that his work appeared in 
discusses his citation record. The petitioner submitted an electronic mail 
Hurnana Press asserting that the book carrying the petitioner's chapter sold 
print copies in 2006 and one eBook copy in 2006. The director concluded that the petitioner had not 
established that his publication record set him apart from others in the field. The petitioner does not 
address this criterion on appeal. 
The Association of American Universities' Committee on Postdoctoral Education, on page 5 of its 
Report and Recommendations, March 3 1, 1998, set forth its recommended definition of a postdoctoral 
appointment. Among the factors included in this definition are the acknowledgement that "the 
appointment is viewed as preparatory for a full-time academic andlor research career," and that "the 
appointee has the freedom, and is expected, to publish the results of his or her research or scholarship 
during the period of the appointment." Thus, this national organization considers publication of one's 
work to be "expected," even among researchers who have not yet begun "a full-time academic and/or 
research career." Moreover, for biological scientists, the Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook 
Handbook 151 (2006-2007 ed.) reflects that a "solid record of published research is essential in 
obtaining a permanent position involving basic research." This information reinforces CIS'S position 
that publication of scholarly articles is not automatically evidence of sustained acclaim; we must 
consider the research community's reaction to those articles. 
The record establishes that one of the petitioner's articles is widely and frequently cited while other 
articles are moderately cited. Less significantly, but also worth noting, the petitioner was invited to 
prepare a presentation at the Gordon Research Conference. We are persuaded that the petitioner meets 
this criterion. 
Evidence ofthe display of the alien 's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
Initially, the petitioner noted that he had been invited to present his work at the Gordon Research 
Conference held at the University of New England in June 2006. The petitioner submitted the 
invitation, which advised that the petitioner would have a maximum of 10 minutes to present his work 
to be followed by a five-minute discussion. The petitioner, however, only expressly asserted that this 
evidence was relevant to this criterion in response to the director's request for additional evidence. The 
director concluded that the petitioner had not established the reputation of the conferences where he 
presented his work. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(vii) requires evidence of display at an 
artiitic exhibition or showcase. A scientific conference is not an artistic exhibition or showcase. Thus, 
we find that this criterion is not applicable to the petitioner's field. We find that conference 
presentations are far more comparable to scholarly articles than artistic exhibitions and showcases. 
Thus, we have already considered the petitioner's conference presentations under the scholarly articles 
criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
While the petitioner did not claim to meet this criterion initially, in response to the director's request for 
additional evidence, the petitioner asserts that he played a critical role "ensuring the research project 
being conducted smoothly, effectively, and successfully in the Intramural Research Program" at the 
National Institutes of Health (NIH). The director concluded that the petitioner had not established tliat 
he played a leading or critical role for NIH. 
The petitioner does not address this criterion on appeal. 
 We have considered the petitioner's 
contributions above. 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. The petitioner's pay statements reflect that his position with NIH is that of 
"research fellow." The petitioner has not established that the "research fellow" position is a leading or 
critical role for NIH as a whole beyond the obvious need for NIH to employ competent research 
fellows. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signijicantly high remuneration for 
services, in relation to others in the field. 
The petitioner did not initially claim to meet this criterion. In response to the director's request for 
additional evidence, however, the petitioner asserted that he earned above the "Average Annual 
Stipend" for a postdoctoral researcher, which the petitioner asserted was $37,123.45. He also noted 
that he has received four performance cash awards from NIH. The petitioner submitted evidence that, 
as of the date of filing, his basic rate of pay was $52,083 and that he received four cash incentives of 
between $967 and $1,500. The petitioner did not submit any evidence supporting his assertion that the 
average remuneration for a postdoctoral research is $3 7,123.45. The director concluded that the 
petitioner had not submitted evidence of wages in the field for comparison purposes. The petitioner 
does not address this criterion on appeal. 
We will not narrow the petitioner's field to postdoctoral researchers, an inherently entry-level position. 
Even assuming that the petitioner's remuneration is above that of the average postdoctoral researcher, 
he must demonstrate that his remuneration compares with the most experienced and renowned 
members of his field nationally. Without such evidence, the petitioner cannot demonstrate that he 
meets this criterion. 
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office receipts or record, 
cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
As acknowledged by the petitioner, this criterion does not apply to him. 
Finally, 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. In addition to the subjective letters and the petitioner's publication record, which we have 
acknowledged as noteworthy above, the petitioner, a research fellow with NIH, relies on his travel and 
research grants, his professional memberships and his employment with NIH. While this may 
distinguish him from other postdoctoral researchers and research associates, we will not narrow his 
field to others with his level of train 
 e. According to the petitioner, the references in 
this matter include a Nobel Laureate 
 makes no such claim and his curriculum vitae is 
not in the record) and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, a highly exclusive membership. 
In addition, the references include Department Chairs, SectionIDivision Chiefs and directors of 
research centers. Two references indicate that they have authored more than 200 published articles. 
One reference serves on the council of the JDS. Thus, it appears that the highest level of the 
petitioner's field is far above the level he has attained. 
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. 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself as a 
biomedical researcher 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 
indicates that the petitioner shows talent as a biomedical researcher, but is not persuasive that the 
petitioner's achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field. Therefore, the 
petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition 
may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 136 1. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.