dismissed EB-1A Case: Biomedical Research

u.S. Department of Efomeland Security 
u S Cltlzensh~p and Immlgratlon Serwces 
Office of Admrnrstratrve Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
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. $ 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form 1-2908, 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)(I)(i). 
u 
John F. Grissom 
' Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska 
Service Center. The director reopened the matter on the petitioner's motion filed concurrently with 
the instant appeal, and denied the petition again. The matter 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 1 153(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 she 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 
she has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on December 22, 2006, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with 
extraordinary ability as biomedical researcher. The petitioner holds a Ph.D. in Biological Sciences 
from the National University of Rio Cuarto, Argentina (2005). At the time of filing, the petitioner 
was working as a Research Fellow in the Department of Medicine, Renal Unit, Massachusetts 
General Hospital and Harvard Medical School. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(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. 
5 204.5(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. 
5 204.5(h)(2). The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria.' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted an April 13, 2000 second place award from the Immunological Specialties 
Laboratory for the quality and presentation of her research at the "XV Latin American Congress on 
Microbiology and the XXXI National Congress of Microbiology." The record does not include 
specific information about this award from the presenting organization (such as the official selection 
criteria). The petitioner also submitted a September 18, 2006 letter from -, 
Professor of Immunology, University of Rio Cuarto, Argentina, stating that the preceding award was 
G c 
prestigious," but the letter provides no substantive information regarding the award or its national 
or international significance. The plain language of the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(i) 
specifically requires that the petitioner's awards be nationally or internationally recognized in the field 
of endeavor and it is her burden to establish every element of this criterion. In this case, there is no 
evidence showing that the preceding second place award had a significant level of recognition 
beyond the presenting organization. For example, there is no evidence demonstrating that recipients 
of this award were announced in professional journals or in some other manner consistent with 
sustained national or international acclaim. 
The petitioner submitted a participation certificate from the Japan International Cooperation Agency 
(JICA) stating that she "successfully completed the Group Training Course in Introductory Gene 
Manipulation for Agriculture at Department of Applied Biochemistry, College of Agriculture, Osaka 
Prefecture University from isth August, 1997 to 27th November, 1997 organized by the Osaka 
' The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
Page 4 
International Centre of the Japan International Cooperation Agency." 
 [Emphasis added.] The 
petitioner also submitted a September 18, 2006 letter from - Deputy Resident 
Representative, Argentine Office of the JICA, stating: "[The petitioner] was the only person from 
Argentina selected to participate in the 1997 course. Her selection was considered a prestigious 
award. It is a scholarship that is provided by the Japanese government and includes air tickets and 
living allowances." In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a 
January 24, 2008 letter from 
 stating: 
The Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) is an independent government agency 
that coordinates official development assistance (ODA) for the government of Japan. 
JICA's programs include Technical Cooperation Projects, Dispatch of Technical Cooperation 
Experts, and Technical Training of Overseas Participants. Those who have received such 
technical training are now contributing in many ways to the development of their home 
countries and areas. 
As a part of the ODA program, we grant a limited number of scholarships to only the most 
qualified applicants. 
The preceding evidence does not establish that the petitioner's receipt of a JICA scholarship to 
attend an "Introductory Gene Manipulation" training course in Japan is tantamount to her receipt of 
a nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence in the field. This scholarship 
represents financial assistance for the petitioner's technical training at Osaka Prefecture University 
rather than a nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence in her field. The 
petitioner's receipt of scholarship funding for this "Introductory" course offers no meaningful 
comparison between her and experienced professionals in the field who have long since completed 
their initial studies in gene manipulation. 
The petitioner submitted an October 20, 1999 letter from the Director General of the Fund for 
Scientific and Technological Investigation (FONCyT), National Agency of Scientific and 
Technological Promotion (Argentina), stating: "I would like to inform you that considering the 
documentation presented and having complied with the corresponding requisites for the contested 
post-doctoral degree scholarship, we have appointed [the petitioner], as scholar in the mentioned 
project, being the starting date on 01/10199."' In response to the director's request for evidence, the 
petitioner submitted a January 26, 2008 letter fromProfessor and Head of the 
Ph.D. in Biology Program, Centro Regional Universitario Bariloche, Universidad Nacional del 
Comahue, stating: 
' The "mentioned project" identified in the letter is - 
Page 5 
I am the Director of the Program Project (PICT 97-00895). This project was funded through 
a grant from the National Agency of Scientific and Technological Promotion (FONCyT). 
[The petitioner] was awarded a Postdoctoral position in 1999, to participate in this project 
with me. 
We selected the petitioner because, in addition to her unique research with medicinal plants, 
she had already mastered all of the novel molecular and immunology techniques, and she had 
been exposed to international forums (Japan); all this . . . indicated that [the petitioner] was a 
researcher with remarkably exceptional potential. 
The preceding evidence does not establish that the petitioner's receipt of postdoctoral support funds 
from FONCyT is tantamount to her receipt of a nationally or internationally recognized award for 
excellence in the field. The petitioner's selection for this ostdoctoral fellowship represents her 
receipt of financial support for participation in & research project. We note here 
that research grants simply fund a scientist's work. The research qualifications of the investigator 
are a factor in such positions. The funding institution has to be assured that the investigator is 
capable of performing the proposed research. Nevertheless, a research fellowship is principally 
designed to fund future scientific research, and is not a national or international award to honor or 
recognize excellent achievement in the field. Further, we note that a substantial amount of scientific 
research is funded by research grants from a variety of public and private sources. Therefore, we 
cannot conclude that receiving funding for one's advanced research training constitutes receipt of a 
nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the field of endeavor. Such 
postdoctoral support funding is presented not to established researchers with active professional 
careers, but rather to recent graduates seeking to further their research training and experience. 
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 
class~fication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines orfields. 
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 submitted an October 18, 2006 letter from the Membership Coordinator of the 
American Association of Immunologists stating: 
Page 6 
[The petitioner] . . . was accepted as a Trainee member of the American Association of 
Immunologists (AAI) on November 2, 2004 and is a member in good standing. 
The categories of membership are; regular, emeritus, trainee and honorary. To be a Trainee 
member, the applicant must be a matriculated, pre-doctoral student in an immunology (or 
related field) graduate program. A signature of the program official is required. Also, a 
Trainee member may be a post-doctoral trainee in an immunology or related field. 
 A 
signature of an AAI sponsor and a program officialldepartment head is required. 
With regard to the petitioner's "Trainee" membership grade in the AAI, we cannot conclude that being 
"a matriculated, pre-doctoral student in an immunology (or related field) graduate program" or "a 
post-doctoral trainee in an immunology or related field" constitute outstanding achievements. 
Further, we note that the petitioner's "Trainee" category is the least restrictive among the four grades of 
membership within the MI. Accordingly, the petitioner's level of membership in the AAI is not an 
indication that she "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 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. 
The petitioner also submitted letters from the American Society of Nephrology (ASN) and the 
American Society for Microbiology (ASM) indicating that she holds membership in the societies. 
The record, however, does not include documentation (such as membership bylaws) showing the 
admission requirements for the ASN or ASM. 
In this case, the petitioner has not established that the AAI, the ASN, or the ASM require 
outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international 
experts in her field or an allied one. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that she 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 classification 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 
Page 7 
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 a September 10, 2006 article about her in the Sunday edition of Puntal, a 
local newspaper distributed in the city of Rio Cuarto, Argentina. In response to the director's 
request for evidence, the petitioner submitted information reflecting that the Sunday edition of 
Puntal had an average circulation of only 8,338 in 2007. This information does not establish that 
Puntal qualifies as a form of major media. 
The petitioner submitted an article in the March 2000 issue of Interciencia: Scientzfic Bulletin of the 
National University of Rio Cuarto. The article briefly mentions the petitioner as one of several 
members of a research team, but it is not primarily about her. The plain language of this regulatory 
criterion requires that the published material be "about the alien." Further, the author of the material 
was not identified as required by this regulatory criterion. Nor is there evidence showing that this 
university bulletin from the petitioner's aha mater qualifies as a major publication. 
The petitioner submitted a January 19, 2000 article in Prens Arornatica, but the author of the 
material was not identified. Further, the article only mentions the petitioner's name in passing and 
there is no evidence demonstrating that Prens Arornatica qualifies as a major publication. 
The petitioner submitted an article in the May 2001 issue of Voces de la Universidad, a magazine of 
the National University of Rio Cuarto, but this material was authored by the petitioner rather than 
being about her. In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted 
information reflecting that this university publication has a circulation of only 1,200. This 
information does not establish that Voces de la Universidad qualifies as a major publication. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted citation indices fiom IS1 
Web of Science demonstrating that her body of work has been cited an aggregate of 22 times. 
Regarding the scientific articles that merely reference the petitioner's published work, we note that 
the plain language of this regulatory criterion requires that the published material be "about the alien." 
In this case, the articles citing the petitioner's work are primarily about the authors' work, not the 
footnoted material identifjrlng the petitioner. With regard to this criterion, a footnoted reference to the 
alien's work without evaluation is of minimal probative value. Further, we note that the articles citing 
the petitioner's work similarly referenced numerous other authors. The submitted citations to the 
petitioner's work do not discuss the merits of her work, her standing in the field, any significant 
impact that her work has had on the field, or any other aspects of her work consistent with sustained 
national or international acclaim. The citations of the petitioner's work are more relevant to the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3)(vi) and will be further addressed later in this decision. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
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. 
Page 8 
Evidence of the alien 's original scientzfic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major signiJicance in the$eld. 
The petitioner submitted several letters of recommendation. 
[The petitioner] joined my laboratory at the Harvard Medical School in July 2001 to conduct 
cutting edge research in the field of inflammation-transplantation, which is the main focus of 
our work. 
[The petitioner's] 2005 article published in FASEB Journal, a leading journal in the field of 
biochemistry and experimental biology, has been cited in eight (8) publications. [The 
petitioner] established . . . novel molecules (lipoxins) as critical in the protection against graft 
vs. host disease, a life-threatening condition that manifests after allogenic bone marrow 
transplantation (BMT). The scope of her work and the research avenues opened by it, 
broaden the field of BMT and have a strong potential impact on the diabetes "cure" via 
allogenic BMT, since the clinical application of BMT for tolerance induction towards the 
transplanted islets has been previously precluded by complications of graft-versus-host 
disease (GVHD). 
letter goes on to discuss additional research papers coauthored by the petitioner in 
publications such as Journal of Leukocytes Biology and Journal of Biological Chemistry. 
 The 
petitioner's published work is far more relevant to the "authorship of scholarly articles" criterion at 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(vi). Here it should be emphasized that the regulatory criteria are separate and 
distinct from one another. Because separate criteria exist for authorship of scholarly articles and 
original contributions of major significance, USCIS clearly does not view the two as being 
interchangeable. If evidence sufficient to meet one criterion mandated a finding that an alien met 
another criterion, the requirement that an alien meet at least three criteria would be meaningless. We 
will fully address the petitioner's published work and citation history under the next criterion. 
- Assistant Professor of Surgery, Harvard Medical School, and Associate 
Immunologist, Massachusetts General Hospital, states: 
[The petitioner] worked for four years under the mentorship of at the 
Massachusetts General Hospital. 
[The petitioner's] work has concentrated in determining the mechanisms underlying . . . 
tolerance induction after bone marrow transplantation in a diabetic mouse model. 
Page 9 
In her most recent work, [the petitioner] was able to show that the main mechanism is the 
deletion of the cells that destroy the pancreas in the diabetic model. [The petitioner's] work 
is of tremendous importance for the field of transportation immunology and diabetes, and is 
making an extremely important contribution to the development of clinical treatments. 
Investigator, Vascular Cell Biology, Joslin Diabetes Center, Harvard Medical 
School, states: 
[The petitioner's] efforts have been focused on a novel approach to characterize the 
mechanisms involved in the toleration of diabetogenic cells in hematopoietic chimeras using 
a transgenic diabetic mouse model. She has demonstrated that the main mechanisms of 
toleration by mixed chimerism are central and peripheral deletion of autoreactive T-cells. 
- Associate Professor of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, 
states: 
[The petitioner's] work in the induction of tolerance by bone marrow transplantation in a 
specific diabetic mouse model, has provided valuable information about the mechanisms by 
which bone marrow transplantation modulated the cells involved in the pancreatic cells 
destruction. Her finding is very exciting and is a breakthrough in the field. 
, Professor, Center for Medical Physics and Technology, Biophysics Group, 
Friedrich-Alexander-University of Erlangen-Nurnberg, states: "[The petitioner's] recent discovery 
of the deletion of disease causing cells in mice with diabetes has significant consequences to the 
understanding of the molecular mechanism." 
While the petitioner's research is no doubt of value, it can be argued that any research must be 
shown to be original and present some benefit if it is to receive hnding and attention from the 
scientific community. Any Ph.D. thesis or postdoctoral research, in order to be accepted for 
graduation, publication, presentation, or funding, must offer new and useful information to the pool 
of knowledge. It does not follow that every researcher who performs original research that adds to 
the general pool of knowledge has inherently made a contribution of major significance in the field. 
Head, Laboratory Research, Centre for Kidney Research, Children's 
[The petitioner's] work . . . is currently in the process of reaching publication where it will 
have a major impact on the understanding and treatment of autoimmune disease. She has 
defined the key mechanisms that allow leakage of T cells that lead to autoimmune 
destruction in 2 models of autoimmune disease, diabetes and a model of aggressive kidney 
disease. 
Page 10 
~ssociate Professor of Experimental Surgery, and Immunologist, Medical 
University of Vienna, states: "[The petitioner's] work on critical issues relating to the mechanism 
involved in the tolerization of diabetogenic cells holds promise for new strategies in the treatment of 
diabetes and other autoimmune diseases." 
Assistant Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, and Associate 
Physician, Nephrology Division, Massachusetts General Hospital, states: 
[The petitioner's] contributions in discovering the mechanisms by which bone marrow 
transplantation maintains or restores immune tolerance represents a significant breakthrough. 
I am convinced that [the petitioner] will continue to unravel the mechanisms of type I 
diabetes and help foster the development of anti-diabetic therapies. 
With regard to the witnesses of record, many of them discuss the promise of the petitioner's research 
and what may one day result from her work, rather than how her past research already qualifies as a 
contribution of major significance in the field. A petitioner cannot file a petition under this 
classification based on the expectation of future eligibility. See Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 
45, 49. The assertion that the petitioner's research results hold promise is not adequate to establish 
that her findings are already nationally or internationally acclaimed as major contributions in the 
field. 
According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not only 
original but of major significance. We must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not 
superfluous and, thus, that it has some meaning. While the petitioner has performed admirably on 
the research projects to which she was assigned, the evidence of record does not establish that she 
has made original scientific contributions of major significance in her field. For example, the 
petitioner's supporting evidence does not establish that her work has had a substantial national or 
international impact, nor does it show that her field has significantly changed as a result of her work. 
The opinions of experts in the field, while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a 
successful extraordinary ability claim. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions 
statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 
(Commr. 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination 
regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters from experts 
supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of 
those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795-796. Thus, the content 
of the experts' statements and how they became aware of the petitioner's reputation are important 
considerations. Even when written by independent experts, letters solicited by an alien in support of 
an immigration petition are of less weight than preexisting, independent evidence of original 
contributions of major significance that one would expect of a biomedical researcher who has 
sustained national or international acclaim. Without evidence showing that the petitioner's work has 
been unusually influential, highly acclaimed throughout her field, or has otherwise risen to the level 
of contributions of major significance, we cannot conclude that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in profssional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
The petitioner submitted evidence showing that she coauthored articles in publications such as 
Journal of Leukocytes Biology and Journal of Biological Chemistry. The petitioner also submitted 
evidence showing that she coauthored several papers for presentation at various scientific 
conferences. We take administrative notice of the fact that authoring scholarly articles is inherent to 
scientific research. For this reason, we will evaluate a citation history or other evidence of the 
impact of the petitioner's articles when determining their significance to the field. For example, 
dozens of independent citations for an article authored by the petitioner would provide solid 
evidence that other researchers have been influenced by her work and are familiar with it. On the 
other hand, few or no citations of an article authored by the petitioner may indicate that her work has 
gone largely unnoticed by her field. In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner 
submitted evidence showing that her body of work has been cited an aggregate of 22 times. While 
the citation history submitted by the petitioner demonstrates some interest in four of her articles, it is 
not sufficient to demonstrate that her published work has attracted a level of interest in her field 
consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the jeld at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 
The petitioner argues that presentation of her work at scientific conference meets this regulatory 
criterion. The petitioner's field, however, is not in the arts. The plain language of this regulatory 
criterion indicates that it is intended for visual artists (such as sculptors and painters) rather than for 
researchers such as the petitioner. The ten criteria in the regulations are designed to cover different 
areas; not every criterion will apply to every occupation. The petitioner's conference presentations 
are more relevant to the "authorship of scholarly articles" criterion at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3)(vi), a 
criterion that has already been addressed. Nevertheless, in the fields of science and medicine, 
acclaim is generally not established by the mere act of presenting one's work at a conference or 
symposium along with dozens of other participants. Nothing in the record indicates that the 
presentation of one's work is unusual in the petitioner's field or that invitation to present at venues 
where the petitioner's work appeared was a privilege extended to only a few top researchers. Many 
professional fields regularly hold conferences and symposia to present new work, discuss new 
findings, and to network with other professionals. These conferences are promoted and sponsored 
by professional associations, businesses, educational institutions, and government agencies. 
Participation in such events, however, does not elevate the petitioner above almost all others in her 
field at the national or international level. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Page 12 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
At issue for ths criterion are the position the petitioner was selected to fill and the reputation of the 
entity that selected her. 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. On appeal, the petitioner submits published rankings showing that the Nephrology Division at 
Massachusetts General Hospital has a distinguished reputation. With regard to the petitioner's role for 
the Nephrology Division, a February 20, 2008 letter fro-, Principal Investigator, 
Nephrology Division, Massachusetts General Hospital, states: 
[The petitioner's] willingness to collaborate, share her expertise, and her team attitude was 
essential to the success of the science. As an example I will describe one of my own 
projects, which depended on the expertise of [the petitioner]. 
As the Principal Investigator of this project I can confirm that [the petitioner] played a 
critical role on this research work, and it would not have been possible without her. The 
project required extensive experience with in vivo experiments and use of animal models. I 
asked [the petitioner] to collaborate because I depended on her superb skills to work with 
bone marrow cells, and her ability to introduce mouse model peritonitis. [The petitioner] not 
only provided extensive technical expertise and training of personnel, but she also provided 
invaluable intellectual input, and designed novel experiments that led to unexpected new 
findings. 
While the petitioner has performed admirably on the research projects to which she was assigned, 
there is no evidence showing that her role as a postdoctoral research fellow was leading or critical for 
the Nephrology Division at Massachusetts General Hospital. This subordinate role is designed to 
provide research training for a future professional career in the field of endeavor. The petitioner's 
evidence does not demonstrate how her role differentiated her from the other researchers in the 
division, let alone its tenured faculty and principal in~esti~ators.~ For example, there is no indication 
that the petitioner has served as a "Principal Investigator" and initiated her own research projects. 
The documentation submitted by the petitioner does not establish that she was responsible for the 
Nephrology Division's success or standing to a degree consistent with the meaning of "leading or 
critical role" and indicative of sustained national or international acclaim. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. 
A comparison of the petitioner's position with that of her superiors (such a and of the other individuals 
offering letters of support indicates that the very top of her field is a level above her present level of achievement. 
The petitioner submitted a September 4, 2006 letter fro-stating that she receives an annual 
salary of $37,000. The plain language of this regulatory criterion requires the petitioner to submit 
evidence of a high salary "in relation to others in the field." The petitioner offers no basis for 
comparison showing that her compensation was significantly high in relation to others in her field. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
In this case, we concur with the director's finding that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate her 
receipt of a major internationally recognized award, or that she 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. 
 204.5(h)(2). 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished herself to such an extent 
that she may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the 
small percentage at the very top of her field. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's 
achievements set her significantly above almost all others in her 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 burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will 
be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.