dismissed EB-1A Case: Biomedical Research

U.S. Department of IIomeland Security 
u.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office ofAdministrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
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. 5 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. 3 103.5 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 $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 
 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
Fk?!$!:2? 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
Nebraska 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. 5 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 qualify for classification as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. More specifically, the director found that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate 
receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
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. 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 sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on July 13, 2006, 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 Visiting 
Postdoctoral Fellow in the Laboratory of Cell Regulation and Carcinogenesis, National Cancer 
Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health (NIH). The petitioner worked under the supervision of 
the late, Senior Principal Investigator and former Chief of the Laboratory of Cell 
Regulation and Carcinogenesis, from February 2003 to April 2006. 
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, 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. 
fj 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. 
fj 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 awui-dSfo1- excellence in tlzeJieId of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted an April 1, 2006 letter from 
 stating: "I invited [the 
petitioner] to join my lab here in the NIH. [The petitioner] was selected to join my research group 
from a highly competitive search and was granted the prestigious Fogarty Foundation Fellowship to 
support his stay." As evidence that he received a Fogarty Foundation Fellowship to fund his 
ostdoctoral research at NIH, the petitioner submitted a July 26, 2002 letter to him from- 
dh , Acting Chief, International Services Branch, NIH, stating: 
It is a pleasure to send you this official notification of your award as a postdoctoral Visiting 
Fellow in the NIH visiting Program. This award will enable you to gain biomedical research 
experience at the NIH under the sponsorship of .... 
The period of this award is two years, effective on or about October 21, 2002, provided you 
have satisfied the Visiting Program requirement regarding your doctoral degree. . . . When 
we receive from you all documents requested in relation to your doctoral degree, we shall 
send you the necessary immigration forms. 
' The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
During the first year of your fellowship you will receive a stipend of $35,000. Continuation 
of this fellowship beyond the first year is based on demonstrated progress, and approval by 
your sponsor and Institute director. 
The petitioner's Fogarty Foundation Fellowship represents his receipt of financial support for 
temporary advanced research training rather than a nationally or international1 recognized prize or 
award for excellence in the field of endeavor. We cannot ignore 
 comments that the 
petitioner's fellowship would allow him "to gain biomedical research experience at the NIH" and 
that continuation of his fellowship was "based on demonstrated progress." The petitioner has not 
established that satisfying the Visiting Program requirements with regard to his doctoral degree and 
that showing "progress" in his research training equates to excellence in the field. Experienced 
research scientists do not compete for fellowships and competitive postdoctoral appointments. Thus, 
they cannot establish that a recipient "is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top 
of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. Cj 204.5(h)(2). The petitioner's receipt of a Fogarty Foundation 
Fellowship offers no meaningful comparison between him and experienced researchers in the field 
who had long since completed their postdoctoral training. Further, we note that the petitioner's 
postdoctoral fellowship program was administered under the guidance of - 
The petitioner submitted a certificate from the International Cytokine Society (ICS) indicating that 
he and two others received a "Postdoctoral Investigator Award" at the Puerto Rico 2004 ICS 
Meeting. The record, however, does not include specific information about this award from the 
presenting organization (such as its official selection criteria) in order to establish its national or 
international recognition. We note that the April 1, 2006 letter from describes the 
Postdoctoral Investigator Award from the ICS as a "scientist-in-training" award. 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. 
In addressing the preceding evidence, the director's decision stated: 
The petitioner provided evidence which indicates he received . . . the Postdoctoral 
Investigator Award from the International Cytokine Society and the Fogarty Foundation 
Fellowship. The Service advised the petitioner that while meritorious, it has not been 
established that these constitute lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. The Service requested additional evidence 
which establishes the significance of the awards, their scope, the requirements necessary to 
compete for the awards, and the criteria utilized to select the recipient. However, it is noted 
that the petitioner failed to provide evidence or otherwise address this portion of the request. 
In the absence of additional evidence, it appears that the petitioner's awards are academic in 
nature. Academic study is not a field endeavor, but training for a future field of endeavor. 
As such, awards for academic work, scholarships, and fellowships cannot be considered 
awards in a field of endeavor. Further, the Service maintains that such awards are limited in 
scope and more experienced and established researchers do not compete for these awards. 
As an illustration, the petitioner's Postdoctoral Investigator Award appears to be an award 
designed to recognize the achievements of post docs. As such, this award is limited in scope 
and cannot be considered a prize or award at the highest level in the field. In view of the 
foregoing, the record fails to establish that the petitioner has received any awards consistent 
with national or international acclaim and that can otherwise be considered lesser nationally 
or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
On appeal, counsel challenges the director's finding that the petitioner's awards appear to be 
"academic in nature." Counsel contends that the awards were based on the "research abilities" of the 
petitioner. 
 We note, however, the content of the July 26, 2002 from 
 discussing the 
petitioner's postdoctoral Visiting Fellow award and its reference to requirements relating to the 
petitioner's "doctoral degree." With regard to the petitioner's Postdoctoral Investigator Award from 
the ICS, we agree with counsel that there is nothing in the record to conclude that the award was 
academic in nature. Nevertheless, there is no information from the ICS demonstrating the national 
or international significance of its Postdoctoral Investigator Award. 
Counsel further argues that the director's comment the petitioner's Postdoctoral Investigator Award 
"cannot be considered a prize or award at the highest level in the field" is not consistent with the 
plain language of the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). We agree with counsel that an 
award does not have to be a major international award to meet the requirements of this criterion. 
Nevertheless, the plain language of the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) specifically 
requires that the 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 case, there is no evidence 
showing that the petitioner's award had a significant level of recognition beyond the presenting 
organization. Further, as noted by the director, the petitioner's award was limited by its terms to 
recognize the achievements of "postdoctoral" investigators. Such an award is presented not to 
established researchers with active professional careers, but rather to recent Ph.D. graduates 
participating in advanced scientific training programs. According to the November 2004 newsletter 
of the ICS submitted by the petitioner, the Society recognized other researchers at the meeting by 
conferring honors such as Honorary Lifetime Membership, the Ed Leonard Prize for 
Chemotaxis/Chemokine Research, and the Sheldon Wolff Prize in Cytokine Research. The 
petitioner has not established that his c'Postdoctoral Investigator Award" equates to a level of 
achievement comparable to the preceding awards or otherwise elevates him to "one of that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(2). 
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 
classzfication 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 documentation showing that he is an "Associate" member of the 
American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) and a member of the Federation of American 
Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) and the American Society for Biochemistry and 
Molecular Biology (ASBMB). The record, however, does not include evidence (such as 
membership bylaws) showing the admission requirements for the AACR and the FASEB. With 
regard to the admission requirements for the ASBMB, the petitioner submitted an October 27, 2005 
letter from the Executive Officer of the ASBMB stating: "Regular membership is available to 
individual [sic] who holds a doctorate, has published since the receipt of a doctoral degree at least 
one paper in a referred [sic] 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 
research field and to doctoral training programs, we cannot conclude that holding a doctorate and 
publishing a single paper in a refereed journal equate to outstanding  achievement^.^ 
The petitioner also submitted evidence of his membership in the ICS. In response to the director's 
request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a letter from the Executive Director of the ICS stating: 
To become a member of the ICS an application must be submitted along with copies of 
published documentation of scientific research based on cytokine research. A membership 
committee then reviews the documentation and application. Members are chosen by merit 
evident by not only the work done, but also the potential for future contribution to the health 
and research field. 
The petitioner has not established that demonstrating "merit" in one's published work and "the 
potential for future contribution" are tantamount to "outstanding achievements." In this case, there is 
no evidence showing that the ICS, the AACR, the ASBMB, or the FASEB require outstanding 
achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in the 
2 
 The Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2008-2009 (accessed at www.bls.~ovi'oco on August 3,2009 
and incorporated into the record of proceeding), provides information about the nature of employment as a postsecondary 
teacher (professor) and the requirements for such a position. See htt~:lidata.bls.~ov~i-bin~1,rint.pllocoiocosO66.h. 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 original published 
research, whether arising from research at a university or private employer, does not set the researcher apart from faculty in 
that researcher's field. 
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 thejeld 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.3 
The petitioner submitted an article about him in the December 2004 issue of Ha'Machon (The 
Institute) magazine. The author of this material was not identified as required by the plain language 
of this regulatory criterion. In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner 
submitted a letter from Institute Spokesman, and Head of the Publications and 
Media Department, Weizmann Institute of science: Israel, stating: 
Ha 'Machon magazine . . . is published by the Publications and Media Department of the 
Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel. It is a magazine for cultural thinkers, 
containing an assortment of articles - from the "friendly science" articles describing research 
that his being conducted at the Weizmann Institute, along with articles on Israeli art and 
culture as a whole. 
Ha'Machon has a circulation of around 6000 - 7000, of which, 2000 are distributed 
throughout the Weizmann Institute campus, and the rest among elite hi-tech industries, 
businesses, academic institutes, journalists and political organizations. 
We note that the petitioner was profiled in a magazine published by his alma mater and former research 
institution. Further, the self-serving nature of the statement from the Head of the Publications and 
Media Department for the Weizmann Institute of Science is not adequate to demonstrate that 
Ha'Machon magazine is a major publication. In this instance, aside from failing to identify the 
author of the article, the petitioner has not submitted evidence (such as objective circulation 
information from an independent source) showing the distribution of the preceding publication relative 
3 
 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. 
4 
 According to his resume, the petitioner was a Ph.D. student and later a postdoctoral fellow at the Weizmann Institute of 
Science from 1997 to 2003. 
to other national media to demonstrate that the submitted article was published in a professional or 
major trade publication or some other form of major media. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientzfic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major signzficance in the field. 
The petitioner submitted several letters of support discussing his original research contributions. We 
cite representative examples here. 
[The petitioner] has made significant contribution in biomedical sciences, especially in 
research on the involvement of cytokine signaling and gene regulation in cancer. In 
particular, he identified and characterized the role of MITF, Pax3 and Sox10 genes in the 
progression of melanoma. Also, by using various molecular and biochemical techniques, he 
dissected the mechanism behind the process of transdifferentiation of melanoma cells into 
glial lineage. These findings have a significant impact on devising ways for prevention and 
curing various forms of cancer. 
[The petitioner's] projects in my lab are to study the signaling pathways and genes that are 
involved in breast carcinogenesis and the role of interactions between Smad-dependent and 
independent signaling in breast cancer progression. He found that during TGF-PI treatment, 
the function of Smad3-transcription factor is modulated by its phosphorylation on linker 
region and this in turn will determine its downstream effects. This finding together with 
growing amount of evidence will help us understand the dual role of TGF-P signaling as both 
tumor-suppressor as well as tumor-promoter. During his stay in my lab, he also developed a 
fluorescence-based drug-screen for identifying novel Smad3 inhibitors for therapeutic 
purposes. We intend to use this system to screen the natural compound library available at 
the National Cancer Institute. 
Senior Investigator and Head of the Tumor Suppression Group in the 
Laboratory of Cell Regulation and Development at the NCI, states: 
Since joining in 2003, [the petitioner] has extended his expertise in cancer 
biology to the highly topical problem of breast cancer. . . . Over the past three years, [the 
petitioner] has done important work elucidating the molecular pathway used by one of the 
most important tumor-suppressor molecules, transforming growth factor-beta (TGF-beta), in 
inhibiting the growth of breast cancer cells. . . . Since then, [the petitioner] has been 
critically involved in development of a simple and robust method for high throughput 
screening of National Cancer Institute's Natural Product library for new chemicals that will 
target the TGF-beta pathway. 
Principal Investigator and Head of the Transgenic Oncogenesis Group at the NCI, 
states: 
One of the projects that [the petitioner] pursued during his postdoctoral training was to show 
how a single transcription factor that is Smad3, could mediate a wide variety of TGF-beta 
dependent signals. He showed that Smad3 is phosphorylated not only on its C-terminus, but 
also at the linker region by MAPkinase and Rho pathways and this phosphorylation event 
determines the transactivation potential of Smad3. [The petitioner] has been the primary 
force behind the development of a new drug screen to identify inhibitors of SMAD proteins, 
which he has shown to be critical in cancer progression. He developed cell lines, which 
express either destabilized green or red fluorescence proteins, in a SMAD-dependent manner, 
that is only in the presence of activated SMAD protein. These cell lines are to be used for 
screening natural compound libraries available at the National Cancer Institute, for Smad3- 
inhibitory compounds. Importantly, identifying these compounds may lead to an entirely 
new class of drugs to treat cancer. His scientific contributions from both doctoral and 
postdoctoral training are widely recognized . . . . 
Science, states: 
[The petitioner] was engaged in research on the involvement of cytokine signaling and gene 
regulation in cancer. In particular, he identified and characterized the role of MITF, Pax3 
and Sox10 genes in the progression of melanoma. Also, by using various molecular and 
biochemical techniques, he dissected the mechanism behind the process of 
transdifferentiation of melanoma cells into glial lineage. He found that during TGF-P1 
treatment, the function of Smad3-transcription factor is modulated by its phosphorylation on 
linker region and this in turn will determine its downstream effects. This finding together 
with growing amount of evidence will help to understand the dual role of TGF-P signaling as 
both tumor-suppressor, as well as tumor-promoter. Understanding TGF-P signaling 
pathways will ultimately affect our understanding of many different disease processes 
including carcinogenesis, autoimmune disease, fibrotic and even healing of chronic non- 
healing wounds. 
[The petitioner] also developed a fluorescence-based drug-screen for identifying novel 
Smad3 inhibitors for therapeutic purposes and this system is extremely useful to screen 
available libraries of compounds as drug targets. These findings have a significant impact on 
devising ways for prevention and curing various forms of cancer. 
University of California, Irvine, states: 
[The petitioner] has already achieved important scientific recognition in his research field, 
especially on cytokine signaling and cancer. . . . [The petitioner] has made significant 
contributions to the field of melanoma research, on the involvement of Interleukin-6 
signaling and gene regulation in cancer. He has created a novel fusion protein of Interleukin- 
6 fused to soluble Interleukin-6 receptor, which can initiate the anti-growth and 
differentiation effects of Interleukin-6 even in the absence of Interleukin-6 receptor and 
thereby can be used to inhibit the growth of tumor cells which lack the cell surface receptors. 
He also made pivotal discoveries about the molecular mechanisms behind the growth 
inhibition of a melanoma cell line by this chimeric molecule. By using gene profiling and 
siRNA techniques, [the petitioner] has identified genes that are involved in the process of 
growth inhibition, melanogenesis and transdifferentiation of this cell line. . . . At the same 
time, he was instrumental in showing the role of the IL6RIL6 chimera in maintaining and 
myclination of rat Dorsal Root Ganglia's (DRG). He did a systematic analysis of various 
transcriptional factors and their role in regulating myclin gene expression in the presence of 
IL6RIL6. 
After these remarkable and far reaching findings, [the petitioner] continued working on the 
challenging problem of breast cancer. So far, his studies on the role of Transforming Growth 
Factor-beta (TGF-P) in breast cancer progression has yielded a significant amount of data 
which helps us in understanding its biological effects and is highly regarded by scientists in 
the field. [The petitioner] showed that TGF-PISmad signaling can be modulated by non- 
Smad signaling pathways from anti-growth to pro-survival via phosphorylation at the linker 
region. This is a novel concept and adds a new and important angle to our understanding of 
cytokine signaling. At the same time, it opens a possibility of targeting these 
phosphorylation sites for therapeutic purposes. [The petitioner] along with his late lab chief 
has developed a simple but robust cell-based assay to identify novel Smad3 inhibitory 
compounds. By using lentiviral reporter system and Smad3 response elements, he created 
stable cell-lines and optimized the conditions for the system, with an ultimate aim of 
screening the natural and synthetic compound libraries that are available at the National 
Cancer Institute. This work of [the petitioner] is a crucial step in the fight against cancer. . . . 
Professor of Pharmacology and Medicine at Dartmouth Medical School, states: 
While at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel, [the petitioner] demonstrated that IL-6 
could suppress growth of melanoma cells. He came up with the innovative idea, which he 
then pursued together with his colleagues at the Weizmann, of creating a fusion molecule of 
IL-6 fused with soluble IL-6 receptor. He showed that this molecule could successfully 
initiate IL-6 signaling even in the absence of IL-6 receptors, and is needed only in minute 
quantities to elicit its biological effects. The importance of such a molecule is immense . . . . 
[The petitioner] has dissected the molecular mechanisms behind the IL6RIL6 chimera- 
mediated growth inhibition and has identified key genes such as Pax3 and MITF and 
signaling pathways that are involved in this process. [The petitioner] also did some 
pioneering work on the process of transdifferentiation, where cells of one lineage change to 
another. Understanding this process is of utmost importance because it is common among 
metastatic tumors, where cells alter their phenotypic as well as gene expression patterns in 
order to evade the immune system. [The petitioner] demonstrated that IL6RIL6 could 
promote transdifferentiation of the B 16lF10.9 melanoma model to a glial cell phenotype, and 
by using Affymetrix gene arrays, he identified a number of genes that are involved in this 
process. He then went on to confirm the role of some of these genes by selectively knocking 
them down by using siRNA technology. 
In a related vein, [the petitioner] played a key role in understanding the regulation of myelin 
gene expression in the presence of IL6RIL6 in dorsal root ganglia cultures. His collaborative 
studies in this area have shown that the IL6RIL6 chimera can effectively maintain the 
cultures in vitro, and can initiate the expression of myelin genes through the transcription 
factor SoxlO. These results suggest that the chimera can also be used for treating 
neurodegenerative diseases, and might also be used to push the stem cell cultures towards the 
glial lineage. . . . I understand that a major biotechnology company is currently producing 
this IL6RIL6 chimeric molecule designed by [the petitloner], and is evaluating its therapeutic 
effects. 
While at the NCI, [the petitioner] has made several important contributions to the fight 
against breast cancer, which is an epidemic of an alarming proportion. . . . [The petitioner's] 
research has led to the finding that the functions of the TGF-P signal transduction component 
Smad3 can be modulated by its phosphorylation at its middle-linker region by Smad- 
independent pathways such as p38 MAPkinase and RhoIROCK. These observations provide 
a mechanistic basis for the integration of Smad and non-Smad signaling downstream of TGF- 
p. They will help us understand the dual role of TGF-P/Smad3 signaling as both tumor 
suppressor as well as tumor promoter. This knowledge in turn should help in designing 
agonists as well as antagonists of the TGF-P pathway for therapeutic purposes. 
Based on his observations of a central role for Smad3 in TGFp signaling in carcinogenesis, 
[the petitioner], along with his co-workers, has developed an innovative fluorescence-based 
cell assay system to identify phannacologic modulators of the Smad3 pathway. 
In support of the preceding experts' statements, the petitioner submitted documentation showing 
dozens of independent cites to his published findings. These citations 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 his field. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the $eld, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of his co-authorship of several articles appearing in publications 
such as The Journal of Biological Chemistry, Journal of Neuroscience Research, and European 
Cytokine Network. The petitioner also submitted evidence of dozens 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. 
The director's decision did not address this regulatory criterion. 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. 
In response to the director's request for evidence and again on appeal, counsel argues that the petitioner 
has played a critical role for the NCI. While the petitioner has performed admirably on the research 
projects to which he was assigned, there is no evidence showing that his role as a Visiting 
Postdoctoral Fellow was leading or critical for the NCI. This subordinate role is designed to provide 
temporary research training for a future professional career in the field of endeavor. The petitioner's 
evidence does not demonstrate how his role differentiated him from the other researchers in his 
laboratory, let alone the NCI's tenured faculty and principal investigators. Rather, a comparison of the 
petitioner's position with that of his superiors (such as hand) and of the other 
individuals offering letters of support indicates that t e very top of his field is a level above his 
present level of achievement. For example, there is no indication that the petitioner has served as a 
principal investigator and initiated his own research projects. The documentation submitted by the 
petitioner does not establish that he was responsible for the NCI's success or standing 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). We concur with the director's finding that 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. 5 204.5(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). 
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. tj 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. U.S. 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. 5 1361. Here, 
that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.