dismissed EB-1A Case: Biomedical Research

U.S. Department of Ifomeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
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 
Gbert P. Wiemann, 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 (AAO) 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. § 1153(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, most of which relates to 
achievements that postdate the filing of the petition on October 17, 2005. For the reasons discussed 
below, we uphold the director's decision. As explained at the end of this decision, the conclusions we 
reach in evaluating the evidence as it relates to individual criteria is consistent with a review of the 
evidence in the aggregate. 
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. 5 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It 
should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that she has sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as a postdoctoral 
fellow. While neither the statute nor the regulations explicitly preclude an alien in an entry-level 
position from establishing eligibility, the petitioner bears a heavy burden. We will not narrow the 
petitioner's field to those who have received their doctoral degrees in the last few years. Rather, the 
petitioner must establish that she is one of the small percentage at the top of her field, including the 
most experienced and renowned members of her field. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 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 director concluded that the petitioner meets two of the 
regulatory criteria: contributions of major significance pursuant to 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3)(v) and 
authorship of scholarly articles pursuant to 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3)(vi). We will not contest those 
conclusions. Thus, the petitioner must establish that she meets a third criterion. For the reasons 
discussed below, we concur with the director that the remaining evidence falls far short of meeting any 
other criterion. The remaining criteria that are claimed follow.' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awardsfor excellence in the fie ld of endeavor. 
Initially and in response to the director's request for additional evidence (WE), the petitioner relied on 
a Fight For Sight (FFS) postdoctoral research fellowship and a travel award from the Association for 
Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO) to meet this criterion. According to the materials 
submitted in response to the director's RFE, FFS fellowships are restricted to "those who are within 3 
years of the awarding of their doctorate." The stipends are designed to fund fbture research. The 
materials submitted in response to the director's RFE also establish that ARVO travel grants are limited 
to those in full-time training for a medical degree or Ph.D. or recent doctoral recipients. 
The director concluded that the travel grant was designed to provide financial assistance in attending a 
meeting to those with limited means and that the fellowship was designed to fund future research rather 
than recognize past excellence. 
The petitioner no longer claims to meet this criterion on appeal and we concur with the director. 
Awards limited to those who are still in school or who have only recently completed their academic 
training are not consistent with that small percentage at the top of the field. In addition, we concur with 
1 
The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
the director that fellowships are principally designed to fund future research rather than recognize past 
excellence in the field. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classification is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements oftheir members, as judged by recognized national 
or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
Initially and in response to the director's WE, the petitioner claimed to meet this criterion through her 
postdoctoral membership in the Society for Developmental Biology and her regular membership in the 
Genetics Society of America (GSA), the American Association for the Advancement of Science 
(AAAS) and ARVO. According to the materials submitted in response to the WE, ARVO requires 
that members demonstrate "a serious interest in or making [sic] significant contributions to visual 
science." Evidence to establish eligibility for membership includes evidence of scientific publications, 
attendance at meetings or direct involvement in research. None of these accomplishments appear 
outstanding for a researcher engaged in his field of endeavor. While the petitioner submitted evidence 
that AAAS membership includes Nobel Laureates, at issue are the membership requirements. The 
materials submitted in response to the WE reflect that AAAS is "open to all." The materials about the 
Society for Developmental Biology reveal that its membership includes "developmental biologists at all 
stages of their careers." Finally, the petitioner's RFE response includes evidence that GSA is open to 
"all persons interested in genetics." 
The director concluded that none of the associations of which the petitioner is a member require 
outstanding achievements of their members. The petitioner does not challenge this conclusion on 
appeal and we concur with the director's analysis and conclusion. 
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 classifcation is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
Initially, the petitioner relied on an editorial commentary in Neuron discussing the petitioner's article in 
the same issue. In the RFE, the director noted that the petitioner was not mentioned by name in the 
Neuron editorial commentary. In response, the petitioner affirmed her role in the research discussed in 
Neuron and submitted evidence that an editorial commentary in Developmental Cell discussed another 
article of hers and mentioned her by name. This new commentary postdates the filing of the petition. 
The petitioner also submitted evidence that her work was mentioned in the JHU Gazette, also after the 
date of filing. 
The director concluded that the petitioner had not established that the JHU Gazette, which appears to 
be a campus newspaper at the university where the petitioner works, is major media. The director 
Page 5 
fb-ther concluded that the petitioner had not established that the commentary in Developmental CeN 
afforded the petitioner any exposure beyond the publication of her article in the same issue. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the director failed to consider the witness letters that establish the 
significance of her role in the research discussed in Neuron. The petitioner Mher asserts that the 
director erred in concluding that the commentary in Developmental Cell did not distinguish the 
petitioner's research as more significant than other research in the field. Finally, the petitioner submits 
evidence that a press release from Johns Hopkins reporting on the petitioner's recent findings has been 
posted on several scientific websites. This press release, which appears on the different websites with 
the exact same language, includes no byline and lists its source as Johns Hopkins, postdates the filing of 
the petition. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iii) is unambiguous; it requires evidence of published materials 
"about the alien7' relating to his work, not simply "about" the petitioner's work in the field. Cf 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(3)(i)(C) (relating to outstanding researchers under section 203(b)(l)(B) of the Act). 
Thus, the director was justified in finding that a commentary that does not mention the petitioner by 
name cannot be considered "about" the petitioner. 
Regardless, we are not persuaded that the commentary is indicative of or consistent with national or 
international acclaim or status within that small percentage at the top of the field. We note that these 
standards are set forth in the statute at section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. Thus, any evidence submitted to 
meet a given criterion must be indicative of or consistent with these standards if they are to have any 
meaning. The commentary in Neuron is more akin to a promotion of the petitioner's article by the 
publisher than independent journalistic coverage of the petitioner and her work. It does not garner her 
any recognition in the field beyond those already reading the issue of Neuron in which her article 
appears. 
The article in the JHU Gazette, the commentary in Developmental Cell and the press releases submitted 
on appeal all postdate the filing of the petition. The petitioner must establish her eligibility as of the 
filing date in this matter. See 8 C.F.R. $9 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 
(Regl. Commr. 1971). Thus, we cannot consider this new evidence. 
In reaching our conclusion regarding this criterion, we do not contest that the evidence submitted to 
meet this criterion has relevance. We are persuaded that the evidence reflects on the significance of the 
petitioner's contributions and scholarly articles, criteria the director acknowledged that the petitioner 
meets. We are not persuaded, however, that the evidence can serve to meet this criterion, which 
requires published material in major media about the petitioner and relating to her work. 
Evidence ofthe alien S participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an alliedjield ofspecifcation for which classrfication is sought. 
Page 6 
Initially, the petitioner submitted a letter from 
 Editor-in-Chief for the Chinese Journal 
of Gastroenterolog~ and Hepatology asserting that the petitioner was a "specially invited reviewer" for 
that journal. In response to the director's WE, the petitioner submitted copies of the journal, articles in 
the journal and its requirements for manuscript submissions. The director concluded that peer review is 
not unique in the petitioner's field and that the petitioner had not established that her peer review duties 
set her apart from others in the field. On appeal, the petitioner challenges the director's statement that 
peer-review is common and asserts that the director applied a standard that goes beyond the regulation. 
Finally, the petitioner krther asserts that she has reviewed manuscripts for the Journal of China 
Medical Universig. 
We cannot ignore that the thousands of quality scientific journals in existence are peer reviewed and 
rely on many scientists to review submitted articles. Thus, we concur with the director that peer review 
is routine in the field and that not every peer reviewer enjoys sustained national or international 
acclaim. Without evidence that sets the petitioner apart from others in her field, such as evidence that 
she has reviewed an unusually large number of articles, received independent requests from a 
substantial number of journals, or served in an editorial position for a distinguished journal, we cannot 
conclude 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 asserted that her presentations at scientific conferences serve to meet this 
criterion. In the RFE, the director noted that the regulation relates to artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
The petitioner no longer claims to meet this criterion. We concur with the director that this criterion is 
not applicable to the petitioner's field and that the petitioner's conference presentations are better 
considered as comparable to scholarly articles pursuant to 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3)(vi), a criterion the 
petitioner meets. 
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. The petitioner, a postdoctoral fellow, relies on her publications, citation record, the 
publication of a promotional commentary about her work in the same issue in which it was published 
and service as a peer-reviewer. While this may distinguish her from other postdoctoral researchers, we 
will not narrow her field to others with her level of training and experience. a senior 
scientist at SAIC and one of the petitioner's references was a member of the Editorial Board for the 
Chinese Journal ofArteriosclerosis. , Chair of the Department of Cell Biology at 
Harvard Medical School and another of the petitioner's references, is a member of the Institute of 
Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences and has served on numerous scientific advisory 
boards, National Institutes of ~ealth (NIH) review panels and editorial boards. - 
Chairman of the Department of Biological Chemistry at Johns Hopkins and a third reference, has 
served on multiple NIH grant review panels and is an editor for two journals. Thus, the top of the 
petitioner's field is far above the level she has achieved. 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the alien has achieved sustained national or intemational 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 herself as a 
researcher to such an extent that she may be said to have achieved sustained national or intemational 
acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the very top of her field. The evidence indicates that the 
petitioner shows talent as a postdoctoral fellow, but is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements 
set her significantly above almost all others in her 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. Section291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. tj 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.