dismissed EB-1A Case: Biomedical Research

U.S. Depubneat of Homeland Scclufty 
:xvmt 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Waslungton. DC 20529 
nvesbD Q~IW~ 
U.S. Citizenshi 
and 
PUBI~J~ mk+ services 
FILE: EAC 02 244 53W4 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER  are$ ?R ! 4 20s 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETlTION: 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. 8 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 rerurned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any funher inquiry must be made to that office. 
U hobert P. Wiemann, Dimtor 
Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 02 244 53094 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-bad immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont 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(bXl)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. !j 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability in the 
sciences. Tbe director determined that the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international 
acclaim requisite to classification as an alien with extraordinary ability. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
(1) Priority Workers. - Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are aliens 
described in any of the following subpamgraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with Extraordhary 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. 
The applicable regulation defines the statutory tern "extraordinary ab'ity" as "a level of expertise indicating 
that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to tbe very top of the field of endeavor." 
8 C.F.R. Q 204.5(3)(2). Specific supporting evidence must accompany the petition to document the "sustained 
national or international acclaim" that the statute requires. 8 CF.R. Q 204.5@)(3). An alien can establish 
sustained. national or international acclaim through evidence of a "one-time achievement (that is, a mjor, 
intedonal .recognized award)." Id. Absent such an award, an alien can establish the necessary sustained 
acclaim by meeting at least three of ten other regulatory criteria. Id. 
In this caqe, the petitioner seeks ~lassification as an alien with extraordinary ability in the sciences as a 
biomedical research scientist. The petitioner submitted evidence of her education and publications along with 
seven recommendation letters From supervisors and colleagues. After assessing this evidence, the director founcl 
that although the-petitioner was a valued researcher who had made some meaningful contributions to her field. 
the evidence was insufficient to establish that she was an alien with extraordinary ability in the sciences. Dn 
appeal, the petitioner submits four additional recommendation letters, verif~cation of her pending membership in 
the American Society for Cell Biology, citation information for her published articles, and additional documents 
relating to her research. This evidence does not overcome the reasons for denial and we affirm the dimtor's 
decision. The evidence submitted and the petitioner's claims are addressed in the following discussion of the 
regulatory criteria relevant to the petitioner's case. 
EAC 02 244 53094 
Page 3 
(i) Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or intemtiomlb recognized prizes or awards 
for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The btoc found no evidence relating to this criterion. On appeal, the petitioner claims that her receipt of 
scholarships and a fellowship mtet this criterion. Specifically, the petitioner refers to her receipt of scholarships 
and "other awards as an excellent studenty' while saying at Fudan University in China and at the University of 
Montreal in Canada The record contains no evidence of these honors and we cannot accept unsupported 
assertions as truth. Matter of Trewre Crafi of CaL, 14 I&N Dec. 190, 193-94 (Reg. Corn. 1972). The 
petitioner also cites her selection for a postdoctoral fellowship from the Natural Sciences and Engineering 
Research Council of Canada even though she did not accept this fellowship and instead accepted a postdoctoral 
position at the University of Massachusetts. Again, the record contains no corroborative evidence of the 
Canadian fellowship. Regardless, such evidence would not suffice to meet this criterion. Academic study and 
postdoctoral training are prerequisite to a career in the sciences. Only other students and ment doctoral 
graduates - not established scientists - compete for scholarships and postdoctoral fellowships. While such 
awards may show the recipient's promise &d potential, they do not establish national or international 
recognition for excelience as an established resemh scientist. Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this 
criterion. 
(ii) Documentation of the alien's mtmbership in associatiom in the field for which class@ca?ion is sought, 
which require outs&antiing achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international 
experts in their disciplines orfields. 
The director correctly stated that the petitioner submitted no evidence to venfy or establisb the significance of 
the petitioner's membership in tbe New York Academy of science? On appeal, the petitioner submits a letter 
from The American Society for Cell Biology confirming that the petitioner's membership application will be 
reviewed on December 4,2004. This potential membership cannot be considered. A petitioner must establisb 
eligibility at the date of filing. 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(12), Matter of Kdgbak, 14 IBtN Dec. 45,49 (Comrn. 1971). 
Even if the wtioaer was already a member of this society, that membership would be insufficient to establish 
her eligibility. In order to satisfy this criterion, membership in an association must be earned by virtue of a 
member's outstanding achievements. Membership based on employment or activity in the field, a minimum of 
education or work experience, or recommendations by current members is insufficient because these 
qualifications do not constitute outstanding achievements. The letter submitted by the petitioner in this case 
states that qualifications for membership in The American Society for Cell Biology only require sponsorship by 
another member in good standing and a doctoral, medical or equivalent degree (or equivalent experience). 
Those quaiifications do not constitute outstanding achievement.. Consequently, the petitioner does not meet 
this critelion. 
(iii) Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media, 
relating to the alien 's work in the field for which classification is sought. Such evidence shall incluak jhe 
title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary transiation. 
1 
The petitioner explains: "I was told that being a member of any academic society would benefit the 
application. I chose New York Academy of Science because it could be registered.online and processed 
within a few days, easy and quick, plus it is free. Sorry that I didn't know that it wasn't that qualified." 
EAC 02 244 53094 
Page 4 
The director correctly determined that the petitioner did not meet this criterion. The petitioner has published 
three articles in scientific journals. She is the lead author on one article and is a co-author on the 0th two. All 
of the articles were published while the petitioner was a doctoral student at the University of Montreal. 
Published articles written by the petitioner cmot satisfy this criterion because the regulation requires published 
material about the alien. The record also contains citation information for these articles and one articIe from the 
May 1997 issue of Nature Biotechnology that reviews the petitioner's research. Although the latter article may 
constitute published material about the petitioner, it was an editorial review in tbe same issue in which the 
petitioner's article appeared. In addition, the review was published nearly five years prior to the filing of the 
petition and does not reflect sustained national or international acclaim. This review, the petitioner's 
publications and citations are more relevant to and will be discussed below under the fifth and sixth criteria. 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions 
of major significance in thefield. 
The director correctly determined that the petitioner did not meet this criterion. The petitioner submitted seven 
reference letters with her petition. On appeal, the petitioner submits second letters from three references and 
one additional recommendation letter, All of these letters were solicited by the petitioner and - with the 
exception of one letter - were all written by the petitioner's current and past mpervi.wrs and colleagues. 
Consequently, they carry less weight than independent, preexisting evidence of the petitioner's contributions. 
In addition, the letters speak largely of the petitioner's potential and promise as an excellent scientific 
researcher. They do nd attest to her existing contributions as an established research scientist. Professor 
M 
the petitioner's supe&isor during her postdoctoral work at the University of 
assachusetts, states that the petitioner has "excellent potential for a productive scientific career." Professor 
who knew the petitioner as a graduate student at the University of Montreal, states that the 
tential to be a leader in the imponant area of medical research where she has decided to 
a member of the petitioner's dissertation committee at the University of 
Montreal, states that the puitioner "shows considerable promise for becoming a leader in her fieId of research." 
Many of the letters speak of the importance of the petitioner's research on hammerhead ribozyme activity in 
bacteria that was *ublished in the prestigious journal Nature 
performed while the petitioner was a doctoral student being who is hailed 
by the petitioner's references as an internationally article was 
published nearly five years prior to the filing of the petition and is not indicative of the petitioner's sustained 
national or international acclaim The discussion of the petitioner's subsequent resmch is of even less weigbt. 
Apparently, none of her subsequent research has been published. The letters all refer to the potential importance 
of the petitioner's more recent work. Professor Fournier, in his second ktter, states that "[iln her pregent 
position Dr. has ired excellent experience with important new technologies that provide new strength 
and potential.*' Dr. petitioner's current supervisor at the Weis Center for Research, states that the 
petitioner's initial research in her laboratory has "spark[ed] meetings, but that the 
"results need to be confirmed" and the work remains unpublished. explains that the petitioner's 
more recent work was "instrumental" in securing a new from the National 
Institutes of Health, but that the petitioner's work is still "beiig prepared for publication." 
of the Boston University School of Medicine, also attests to the importance of the petitioner's 
ribozymes as a dnctoral student, but speaks only of the potential of the petitioner's current, "soon to be 
published" work and concludes that she "look[s] forward to witness[ing] [the petitiouer's] outstanding career." 
In sum, the letters estab1i.h the petitioner's excellent work as a student, postdoctoral associae, and a researcher 
EAC 02 244 53094 
Page 5 
laboratory. None of the letters show that the petitioner has made original scientific 
significance in her field that would reflect sustained natid or international acclaim. 
The petitioner also submits citation information for her ddes. This evidenoc is also insufficient to establish 
her eligibility under this criterion. The petitioner's article published in the March 21, 1995 edition of Gene has 
beem cited 16 times. Her article published in the August 9, 19% edition of loumal of Bwfogical Chisky has 
been cited 13 times. Her article published in the May, 1997 edition of Nature BiotechnoIogy (the only article on 
which she is the lead author) bas been cited 17 times. Substantial and ongoing citation of a scholarly article by 
iadepent experts may evidence the author's original scientific contribution of major significance in the field, 
yet the citation inf-on provided in this casedoes not reach that level. The petitioner has not shown that the 
majority of the citations are by independent experts as opposed to self-citations and citations by her co-authors 
or advisors. 
(n') E~s~dence of the dim's authorshi@ of schulady urricies in th fieU in pn$essiml or mio~ &a& 
publications or other major media. 
?he director correctly concluded that the petitioner did not meet this criterion. As previously discussed, the 
petitioner has published three articles concerning research conducted while she was a doctoral student. We do 
not dispute that tbese articles wen published in reputable professiod journals. However, the articles are 
insufficient to establish the petitioner's eligibility under this category. Publication of one's research is requisite 
to successful doctoral studies in the sciences. Heace the petitioner's articles only evidence her success as a 
doctoral student. They do not reflect sustained national or international acclaim as an established =search 
scientist in her field. Moreover, the petitioner's last article was published nearly five years prior to the fding of 
her petition and apparently none of the petitioner's subsequent research has been published. We note that the 
petitioner has only recently begun her career as a research scientist. However, she rmst still estabhh her 
eligibility for classification as a scientist with extraordurary ability at the time of filing. Manerof Katighk, 14 
I&N Dec. at 49. We also note that her fellow doctoral student at the University of Montreal has published 
numerous articles and abstracts sioce his the same year &t the petitioner re&ived her 
doctoral degree. See Curriculum Vitae of (listing eight articles, six abstracts, and one book 
publication since 1999). 
(viii) Eridence thr the alien has perfonneed in a leading or critical role for org&tions or establishments 
that have a distinguished reputdun. 
The director correctly found that the uetitioner did not meet this criterion. The evidence shows that the 
petitioner has made hich she has worked, but has never held a 
leading or critical position. attest to the value of the petitioner's cummt 
do not establish that the petitioner 
performs a leading or critical role for the Center. states that the petitioner's "contribution is of the 
mainly of the ~etitioner's technical 
skills and the potential of her as yet &;blished research and then n$es that "the weis &ter cannot afford the - .- - 
tim and reso&r to hire some6ne ark min such a penon to cany out the tasks assigned -This 
er technical skills and experience m carrying out 
not the petitioner. confirm that the petitioner 'has specific skills and 
expertise that contributor to the research acttvities of the Weis Center for 
Research," but does not identify her as p~&ing a leading or critical role for the organization. In addition, the 
EAC 02 244 53094 
Page 6 
petitioner submits no independent evidence that the Weis Center or bratory enjoy 
distinguished reputations. m 
(ix) Evidence that rhc alien has commanded a high safury or other significantiy high remuncmtion for 
services, in relation to others in thefield. 
Tbe director found no evidence in the record relevant to this criterion. On appeal, the petitioner cites Dr. 
that the pctitioner "is the most highly second letter as evidence of her high salary.? 
compensated employee with this job title in our program e petitioner submits no comborative evidence of 
her salary such as paycheck stubs or income, tax returns. In addition, the record contains no evidence of the 
income of other research scientists in her field with which to compare the petitioner's salary. Consequently, the 
evidence is insufficient to show that the petitioner has earned a salary high enough to reflect sustained acclaim. 
An immigrant visa will be granted to an alien under section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act only if the alien can 
establish extraordinary ability through extensive documentation of sustained national or international 
acclaim demonstrating that the alien has risen to the very top of his or her field. The petitioner bears this 
substantial burden of proof. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 4 1361. The petitioner in this case has not 
sustained that burden. The evidence indicates that the petitioner is a highly skilled researcher who is well 
respected by her colleagues and shows great potential for future success. However, the petitioner mst 
demonstrate that she has already risen to the very top of her field. 8 C3.R. 8 204.501)(2). The record in this 
case does not establish that the petitioner was a researcher with extraordinary ability in the sciences at the 
time of filing. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.