dismissed EB-1A Case: Biomedical Research

id&%- data deleted to 
prevent dearly unwarcmd 
invasion of personal privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave.. N. W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: WAC 03 097 52764 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: JUN 1 3 ZU~T 
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 ofice. 
r 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 03 097 52764 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, California Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. tj 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. 
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. 
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. 5 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that 
the petitioner must show that he has earned sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on February 6, 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 postdoctoral research fellow 
in the Department of Pathology at the University of California, Irvine. 
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. The petitioner has submitted evidence that, he claims, meets the following criteria. 
WAC 03 097 52764 
Page 3 
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 or$elds. 
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 
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 his regular membership in the American Society for Investigative 
Pathology (ASIP), International Society of Interferon & Cytokine (ISIC), and American Society for 
Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (ASBMB). 
The petitioner submitted material from the ASIP7s website stating: "Successful candidates for regular 
membership are independent investigators with solid scientific qualifications, commitment and continuing 
productivity." 
The petitioner also submitted a copy of the bylaws for the ISIC. Item 2 under the heading "Article I: 
Membership" states: "Persons admitted as Members in any category shall: a) possess an earned 
baccalaureate or higher degree in science or medicine or the academic equivalent of the above, and b) be 
currently engaged in professional activities commonly associated with interferon and cytokine research." 
The petitioner also provided a letter fromxecutive Officer of the ASBMB, who states: 
"Regular membership is available to any individual who holds a doctorate, 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 an inherent duty 
of researchers, the mere publication of scholarly articles is not adequate to demonstrate outstanding 
achievement in one's field.' 
I The Association of American Universities' Committee on Postdoctoral Education, on page 5 of its Report and 
Recommendations, March 31, 1998, set forth its recommended definition of a postdoctoral appointment. Among the 
factors included in this definition were the acknowledgement that "the appointee has the fi-eedom, 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 andlor research career." This report reinforces Citizenship and Immigration Service's (CIS) 
conclusion that publication of scholarly articles is not presumptive evidence of outstanding achievement. 
WAC 03 097 52764 
Page 4 
The above membership requirements are not adequate to demonstrate that the petitioner's membership in the 
preceding societies required outstanding achievement in his field or that he was evaluated by national or 
international experts in consideration of his membership. The record contains no evidence to establish that 
the preceding societies 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 theJield 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, the petitioner argues that citation of his work by others in the field represents qualifying evidence 
under this criterion. We note, however, that the petitioner and his work were not the primary subject of the 
articles that cited his 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 scores of 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 ofthe petitioner's work will be addressed under a separate criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's original scientific, scholar[v, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signzjicance in the field. 
We withdraw the director's finding that the petitioner's evidence is adequate to satisfy this criterion. 
The petitioner submitted several letters in support of the petition. 
ow a Guest Professor, Department of Radiation Genetics, Kyoto University, and formerly a 
professor at Kumamoto University (where he supervised the petitioner), states: 
[The petitioner] handled a project involving the study of the mechanism of chromosome partitioning in 
E. coli under my supervision. . . . [The petitioner] obtained very fine results, where he clearly 
demonstrated that C-terminal domain of MukB protein binds to the chromosomal DNA and on the other 
hand the N-terminal domain provides motor function that drives the newly divided chromosome into 
two compartments of divided cell. 
WAC 03 097 52764 
Page 5 
states: "The 
knowledge gained from a relatively simple organism like E. coli will help to advance our studies on similar 
biological process [sic] in the human system, which is much more complex." 
" " 
division in a simple organism, bacteria, which helped us understand the similar process in a human which is 
much more complicated." 
[The petitioner] has for the first time discovered that cytokine receptor family members also signal via a 
regulated intramembrane proteolysis (RIP) pathway, in addition to the already known JAK-STAT 
pathway. . . . This striking new discovery will certainly give new impetus to research aimed at 
improving the therapeutic potential of interferons. 
interferon (IFN) a receptor will aid to explore a new possibility, that IFNaR2 being a transmembrane protein 
signals via regulated intermmembrane proteolysis (RIP)." 
[The petitioner's] most recent research revealed an aspect of cytokine signaling which was not known 
before. The transmembrane proteins Amyloid precursor protein (APP), HER4, SREBP and CD44 were 
recently reported to become activated through proteolysis within the membrane and to initiate a 
signaling pathway named "regulated intramembrane proteolysis (RIP) signaling." [The petitioner] has 
become the first researcher to describe that a cytokine receptor family member, IFNaR2, also undergoes 
the same phenomenon. 
recent work [the petitioner] has successtully studied the regulated intramembrane proteolyt~c processing of' 
membrane proteins. This work holds promise for solving mysteries of many membrane proteins of unknown 
function." 
athology, University of California, Irvine, states that the 
petitioner has worked in his laboratory tor the past four years. 
[The petitioner's] lead project involves understanding the role of a previously unknown interaction 
between proteins involved in the interferon-alpha signaling pathway. . . . The results of [the 
petitioner's] research on the interferon-alpha signaling have uncovered a novel mechanism involved in 
this pathway. In brief, it appears that the receptor for this pathway can signal in two ways: a classical or 
canonical pathway previously described by my lab and many others and the novel pathway recently 
WAC 03 097 52764 
Page 6 
discovered as a result of [the petitioner's] research. . . . We are just beginning to understand the 
interaction between the canonical and novel signaling pathway, but it is likely that this will open up an 
entirely new area for potential drug discovery. 
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 his past efforts rise to the level of a contribution of major significance. 
In the present case, we cannot conclude that petitioner's past contributions far exceed those of established 
pathology researchers. 
is letter by stating: "With the publication in the next month or two of the results of 
his discoveries, [the petitioner] will be recognized internationally as an expert on regulated intramembrane 
proteolytic si naling of interferons." The record, however, contains no evidence showing that the results 
discussed by -were published as of the petition's filing date. A petitioner must establish 
eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. $ 103.2(b)(12); 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 
his findings are already nationally or internationally acclaimed as a major contribution. 
will amplify his accomplishments in the coming years." The visa classification sought by the petitioner, 
however, 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. 
We accept that petitioner's work 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 his 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 he meets this criterion. The petitioner's publications will be further addressed 
under the next criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The petitioner initially provided evidence of his authorship of articles appearing in publications such as 
Biochemistry, FEMS Microbiology Letters, and The Journal of Biological Chemistry. In response to the 
director's request for evidence, the petitioner provided evidence of an article published in Oncogene in 2004. 
This published article, however, came into existence subsequent to the petition's filing date. 8 C.F.R. 
9 103.2(b)( 1 2); see Matter of Katigbak at 45. 
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 
WAC 03 097 52764 
Page 7 
(such as the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the UL..A.) 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 himself has cited sources in his 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. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner provided citation indices showing that his 
article in Biochemistry was cited once, his article in FEMS Microbiology Letters was cited eleven times, and 
his article in The Journal of Biological Chemistry was cited eight times. While the citation indices provided 
by the petitioner demonstrate a small degree of interest in his published work, he has not shown that an 
aggregate total of twenty independent citations over a research career spanning more than a decade elevates him 
to a level above almost all others in his field at the national or international level. We accept that the 
petitioner has authored some published papers over the last several years, but the weight of this evidence is 
diminished by a lack of evidence showing that his published findings are widely influential. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other sign8cantly high remuneration 
for services, in relation to others in the field 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted an April 13, 2004 letter from the 
Office of the Executive Vice Chancellor, University of California, Irvine, indicating that his annual salary 
would increase to $38,652 on July 1,2004. This evidence came into existence subsequent to the petition's filing 
date. 8 C.F.R. fj 103.2(b)(12); see Matter of Katigbak at 45. Evidence relating to subsequent developments in 
the petitioner's career cannot retroactively establish that he was already eligible for the classification sought as of 
the filing date. Regardless, the petitioner offers no basis for comparison to show that this salary is significantly 
high in relation to others in his field. 
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 he meets at least three 
of the criteria that must be satisfied to establish the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify 
as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
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 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 burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 
U.S.C. 3 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
WAC 03 097 52764 
Page 8 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.