dismissed EB-1A Case: Biomedical Research

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
identifying dsta Meted to 
U.S Citizenship and Immigration Services 
OfJice of Admlnlstratlve Appeals MS 2090 
prevent dearly unwarranted 
 Washington, DC 20529-2090 
invasion of personal privacy 
 U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: SRC 07 102 52476 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: J.)N 0 1 2009 
- 
IN RE: 
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: 
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. 
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. 5 103.5 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 $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
~$IJ F. Grissom 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
SRC 07 102 52476 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas 
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 qualifl 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, the petitioner argues that she meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
$ 204.5(h)(3). The petitioner states that her contributions "were not discussed or given importance" 
and requests approval of the petition. 
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. $ 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. 
SRC 07 102 52476 
Page 3 
This petition, filed on February 8,2007, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary 
ability as biomedical researcher. The petitioner holds a Ph.D. in Biochemistry from the Indian 
Institute of Technology Kanpur (1997). At the time of filing, the petitioner was working as a 
Research Professional Associate in the Department of Neurobiology, Pharmacology, and Physiology 
at the University of Chicago. In September 2007, the petitioner began working as a Senior Research 
Fellow in the Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, 
Minnesota. 
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, 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. 
§ 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. 
tj 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 a certificate from the American Society for Investigative Pathology (ASIP) 
stating that she received a "2006 Trainee Travel Award . . . for outstanding research in experimental 
pathology." We cannot conclude that the petitioner's receipt of funding "to offset travel expenses 
for Trainee members of ASIP" attending its annual meeting is tantamount to her receipt of a 
nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence in the field.2 The petitioner's selection 
for an award limited by its terms to "Trainee members" is not an indication that she is among "that 
small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(2). 
Receipt of such AN award offers no meaningful comparison between the petitioner and experienced 
professionals in the field who have long since completed their postdoctoral research training. 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. 
1 
The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
2 
 See "ASIP Trainee Travel Awards" at http://www.asip.org/awds/trainee.htm, accessed on May 13, 2009, copy 
incorporated into the record of proceeding. The petitioner was among 21 ASIP Trainee members who received this 
travel award in 2006. 
SRC 07 102 52476 
Page 4 
The petitioner submitted certificates from the University of New Mexico Office of Animal Care and 
Compliance certifying that she "satisfactorily completed" the "Animal Care and Use Training 
Module" and the "Mouse Biomethodology Training Module" in May 2006. The petitioner also 
submitted a "Certificate of Training" stating that she "successfully completed 10 hours of instruction 
in Introduction to Radiation Protection Technology" in May 2005. The preceding certificates are not 
"prizes or awards." Further, the petitioner has not established that the certificates were presented for 
excellence in the field rather than her fulfillment of career training requirements. Successful 
completion of training courses is not tantamount to one's receipt of nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
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 
classiJication 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 submitted a June 8, 2005 letter from the ASIP confirming that she is an "active 
member" of the Society and that it has "over 2000" members. This letter does not indicate the 
specific membership category held by the petitioner.3 We note, however, that petitioner received a 
"Trainee" member Travel Award from the ASIP in 2006.~ In response to the director's request for 
evidence, the petitioner submitted general information about the ASIP from its internet site, but her 
response did not include evidence (such as membership bylaws or official admission requirements) 
showing that her membership level requires outstanding achievements. Further, the record does not 
establish that being a Trainee member in the ASIP is an indication that the petitioner "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). 
According to the ASIP's internet site, the Society has the following membership categories: Regular, Trainee, and 
Associate. See ASIP "Membership Categories" at http://www.asip.org/mbr/criteria.htm, accessed on May 13, 2009, 
copy incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
4 
 "Candidates for trainee membership are graduate students, residents or postdoctoral fellows. Students who are 
enrolled in a graduate program leading to a degree in medicine, osteopathy, pathology or a related discipline including 
individuals who were recently awarded a doctoral degree and who occupy a post-doctoral or residency position at an 
academic center, a hospital, a research institution or in industry are eligible for Trainee membership." See ASIP 
"Membership Categories" at http://www.asip.org/mbr/criteria.htm, accessed on May 13, 2009, copy incorporated into 
the record of proceeding 
SRC 07 102 52476 
Page 5 
The petitioner submitted a November 2003 certificate stating that she is a "Regular Member" of the 
American Physiological Society (APS). In response to the director's request for evidence, the 
petitioner submitted information from the APS internet site stating: "Regular membership in the 
APS is open to individuals who have conducted and published meritorious original research in 
physiology and are actively engaged in physiological work." We note that publication of one's work 
is inherent to scientific research.' There is no evidence showing that conducting and publishing 
meritorious original research is indicative of a level of accomplishment tantamount to "outstanding 
achievements." 
The petitioner submitted certificates reflecting that she was a member of the Indian Institute of 
Technology Kanpur Students' Gymkhana Cultural Council (1 993 - 1 994) and the Chemical Society of 
the Department of Chemistry at the Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur (1 99 1-1 992). The record 
does not include supporting evidence showing the admission requirements for these institutional 
organizations. 
In this case, the petitioner has not established that the ASIP, the APS, the Students' Gymkhana 
Cultural Council, and the Chemical Society 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. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientzJic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major signficance in the jield. 
The petitioner submitted several letters of recommendation discussing her research contributions. 
On appeal, the petitioner argues that these letters describe her "contribution to the scientific 
community at the extraordinary level" and demonstrate that she meets this regulatory criterion. 
Center, states: 
Before joining my laboratory [the petitioner] trained in pharmaceutical research in India and 
was responsible for drug design and testing and worked with many premier Institutions in 
India . . . . In 2001, she moved to Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine where she 
worked on an ion channel family referred to as the Na+/H+ exchangers. Here, she 
contributed to the understanding of the structure and function of this protein, which is known 
5 
 The Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2008-2009 (accessed at L\\v\! .bls.goc oco on May 13, 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 www.bls.gov/oco/ocos066.htrn. 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 fkom 
research at a university or private employer, does not set the researcher apart from faculty in that researcher's field. 
SRC 07 102 52476 
Page 6 
to be involved in many human diseases including hypertension, kidney disease and eye 
disorders. Three peer-reviewed publications in top-tier journals resulted from her work at 
Johns Hopkins University . . . . 
[The petitioner] worked in my research laboratory as a postdoctoral fellow from May 2004 - 
May 2006. [The petitioner] quickly mastered work with mammalian cells, live cell imaging 
and confocal microscopy, having worked previously in yeast and Drosophila systems. She 
studied the rab7 GTPase and associated proteins in the control of late endocytic membrane 
transport. For this purpose, [the petitioner] developed an assay that traces endocytic 
transport based on the degradation of a key growth factor receptor. This work has important 
applications to cancer biology and, as detailed below, to neurological disease. Her studies 
were published as a chapter in "Methods in Enzymology" and she served as the lead author 
on a review on Membrane Trafficking and Cardiovascular disease in "Circulation Research " 
a peer-reviewed publication of the American Heart Association. [The petitioner] also 
presented her findings at National and International conferences. Thus, [the petitioner] has 
rapidly distinguished herself as a competent and promising research scientist with her 
publication and presentation record as the lead first author. 
[The petitioner's] work has application to an important family of neurological diseases called 
Charcot-Marie Tooth Disease (CMTD). CMTD is the most common inherited neurological 
disorder, affecting approximately 150,000 Americans. . . . At present there is no cure for 
CMTD, although physical therapy and moderate activity are often recommended to maintain 
muscle strength and endurance. . . . Because our group first identified the function of the 
rab7 GTPase in late endocytic membrane transport and over the years has established many 
assays for tracing the trafficking of internalized proteins for degradation, [the petitioner] was 
uniquely poised to answer key open questions with disease relevance. She evaluated the 
defects associated with disease-causing mutations in Rab7 and obtained evidence that the 
mutations disrupt normal endocytic membrane transport. She was invited to present her 
work orally at the Experimental Biology in a session sponsored by the American Society of 
Investigative Pathology. The abstract was also selected for a platform presentation at a 
meeting of the American Society of Neurochemistry, 2006 and a manuscript is in 
preparation. 
~rofessor of Biology, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, states: 
I have known [the petitioner] since she joined the University of New Mexico and am quite 
familiar with her scientific work. Recently, I have had a chance to discuss her work and 
UNM and I found myself re-confirmed in my view of her as a scientist of outstanding 
potential. . . . [The petitioner's] research is highly regarded in her field. This is illustrated by 
her publications in top-quality journals, her participation in international conferences and her 
presentations. 
SRC 07 102 52476 
Page 7 
conference presentations. The petitioner's published and presented 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 and 
presented work under the next criterion. 
LeBoff Professor for Research in Digestive Diseases, Johns Hopkins University 
School of Medicine, states: 
I have known [the petitioner] since she joined department of Physiology in Johns Hopkins 
University School of Medicine in the laboratory of 
 . . . 
[The petitioner] worked on a project funded by National Institute of health [sic] involving the 
function of an important transport protein, named Nhxl. During this period she constructed 
and characterized mutant yeast Na+/H+ exchangers which has been found involved in many 
pathophysiological disease related to heart, kidney and brain. Three peer-reviewed 
publications in top-tier journals resulted from her work at Johns Hopkins University . . . . 
Professor of Physiology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, states: 
During her tenure in my laboratory, [the petitioner] investigated the function of Nhxl, and 
endosomal N~"/H' exchanger in the yeast model organism. 
[The petitioner's] mutagenic analysis on yeast Nhxl provided new insights into the role of 
this important protein. Three peer-reviewed publications in top-tier journals resulted from 
her work in my laboratory at the Johns Hopkins University. . . . Based on these studies, I 
believe that [the petitioner] is a productive and skilled researcher who has made key 
contributions with her research in the United States. 
Chicago, states: 
[The petitioner] has performed research on the function of endosomal Na+/H+ exchangers, 
using yeast as a model organism. This protein is evolutionarily important protein from plants 
to human and its alteration in function produced several human disease associated with heart, 
kidney, lung and eye. [The petitioner's] work provided new evidence for a new role of these 
SRC 07 102 52476 
Page 8 
exchangers in K+ regulation along with Na+. 
 She has done extensive site-directed 
mutagenesis study on this transport protein using molecular physiology to understand which 
amino acids are important for this protein. [The petitioner's] mutagenesis study on yeast 
Nhxl provide [sic] new insights into the role of various transport proteins involved in many 
human diseases such as cystic fibrosis and ulcerative colitis. 
[The petitioner's] vital work on discerning the molecular causes of various genetic diseases 
with a focus on Charcot Marie-Tooth syndrome will elucidate the molecular mechanism 
underlying such diseases. Her work in discerning the cause of this disease due to mutation of 
an important protein Rab7 was found quite important to unveil the cause of this disease. 
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 funding 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. 
-, Professor of Medicine and Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 
Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, states: 
[The petitioner] has expertise in working with mammalian cells, yeast, drosophila 
melanogaster, mouse model, live cell imaging, and confocal microscopy, as well as 
molecular biology which are very important in the field of biomedical research. In particular 
she has studied a class of proteins called the Rab GTPases that are involved in the 
intracellular transport of lipids and proteins and have been found involved in several human 
diseases for which a group of scientists are still investigating the mechanism to understand 
the disease pathology and its treatment. 
During her tenure in my laboratory [the petitioner] will study cells isolated from patients with 
Niemann Pick Type C (NP-C) disease and a lung disease named cystic fibrosis to establish 
the influence of particular Rab proteins on these cells. . . . In particular she will extend our 
recent findings which demonstrated that over-expression of Rab4, 7, or 9 in NP-C cells 
reduced cholesterol storage and alleviated some of the defects associated with this cell type 
for which we have very limited information. [The petitioner] is ideally suited for this work 
because of her previous training and I am confident she will bring a number of new insights 
into how the Rab proteins function in our disease model. 
SRC 07 102 52476 
Page 9 
[The petitioner's] previous experience on mutagenesis study, cell biology, and protein 
biochemistry knowledge with the application in neurobiology will impact greatly on these 
groundbreaking projects for the identification of the related mechanisms involved in 
neurodegenerative diseases and other human diseases and to the development of innovative 
therapies. 
discusses the petitioner's work on research projects that post-date the filing of this 
petition. 
 A petitioner, however, must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 
 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Regl. Comrnr. 1971). Accordingly, 
the AAO will not consider the petitioner's research projects that commenced subsequent to the 
petition's filing date in this proceeding. 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 an original 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 ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 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 significant 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. 
On appeal, the petitioner argues that her work on research projects funded by the National Institutes 
of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) demonstrates "the importance of the 
work and the result." In this case, there is no evidence showing that the petitioner was named as the 
principal investigator on an NIH or NSF grant. Nor is there a statement from any official at the NIH 
or the NSF indicating that the petitioner's specific results were viewed as particularly important 
when compared to those of the thousands of other NIH or NSF grant recipients. In regard to the 
research grants for which the petitioner or her superiors applied and received funding, it is noted that 
research grants simply fund a scientist's work. The past achievements of the principal investigator 
are a factor in grant proposals. The funding institution has to be assured that the investigator is 
capable of performing the proposed research. Nevertheless, a research grant is principally designed 
to fund future scientific research, and is not an indication that the recipient has already made original 
contributions of major significance 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 obtaining research funding is evidence that one's work is already 
recognized as having major significance in the field. 
In this case, the letters of recommendation are not sufficient to meet this regulatory criterion. USCIS 
may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter 
SRC 07 102 52476 
Page 10 
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 professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
We withdraw the director's finding that the petitioner meets this regulatory criterion. The petitioner 
submitted evidence showing that she coauthored articles in publications such as Journal of Enzyme 
Inhibition, Journal of Biological Chemistry, and Molecular Biology of the Cell. The petitioner also 
submitted evidence showing that she coauthored 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 this case, the petitioner submitted evidence showing that her 
published articles have been independently cited an aggregate of six times. While these citations 
demonstrate a small degree of interest in her published work, they are not sufficient to demonstrate 
that her articles have 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 that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
At issue for this 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. 
The petitioner submitted letters of recommendation from her superiors at the Johns Hopkins University 
School of Medicine, the University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center, the University of 
SRC 07 102 52476 
Page 11 
Chicago, and the Mayo Clinic. As discussed above, the petitioner's work at the Mayo Clinic post- 
dates the filing of the petition and will not be considered in this proceeding. 8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(l), 
(12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. While the petitioner has performed admirably on the 
research projects to which she was assigned, there is no evidence showing that her roles as a 
postdoctoral research fellow and a research professional associate were leading or critical for the 
preceding universities. We note that the petitioner's post-doctoral fellowships were designed to 
provide research training for a future professional career in the field of endeavor. The petitioner's 
evidence does not demonstrate how her subordinate research roles differentiated her fiom the other 
researchers employed at her universities, let alone their 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 her employers' 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 signiJicantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. 
The petitioner submitted a September 8, 2006 letter to her from offering a salary of 
$45,355 at the University of Chicago. In response to the director's request for evidence, the 
petitioner submitted a March 1, 2004 letter to her from 
$39,800. The petitioner also submitted an April 24, 2006 letter to her from 
Professor, Department of Neurosciences, University of New Mexico, stating: "As agreed your 
salary will be $42,800 per year, which is just above the recommended NIH salary for postdoctoral 
fellows in their third year." On appeal, the petitioner submits an October 16, 2007 letter fiom the 
Mayo Clinic stating that she receives an annual salary "in the amount of $51,036." As discussed 
above, the petitioner began working at the Mayo Clinic in September 2007. A petitioner must 
establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N 
Dec. at 49. Accordingly, the AAO will not consider the petitioner's salary at the Mayo Clinic in this 
proceeding. 
letter states that the petitioner's salary "is just above the recommended NTH salary for 
postdoctoral fellows in their third year." The record, however, does not include supporting evidence 
from the NIH showing its salary recommendations for postdoctoral fellows in their third year. Going 
on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the 
burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing 
Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). Nevertheless, the 
plain language of this regulatory criterion requires evidence showing that the petitioner has 
commanded "a high salary . . . in relation to others in the field." The petitioner's receipt of a salary 
6 
A comparison of the petitioner's positions with those of her superiors (such as 
 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. 
SRC 07 102 52476 
Page 12 
amount "just above" other "postdoctoral fellows in their third year" does not meet the plain language 
of this regulatory criterion for two reasons. First, the petitioner has not established that her 
compensation reflected a "high salary" rather than falling "just above" the postdoctoral level 
recommended by the NIH. Second, the petitioner's reliance on salary information limited to third- 
year postdoctoral fellows is not an appropriate basis for comparison. The petitioner must submit 
evidence showing that her salary is significantly high in relation to that of researchers in her field 
(including tenured faculty) rather than in relation to only third-year postdoctoral fellows. The 
petitioner offers no reliable salary statistics as a basis for comparison showing that her university 
salaries were 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. 8 204.5(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.