dismissed EB-1A Case: Biomedical Research

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
PUBLIC COPY U. S. Citizenship 
identifying data deleted to 
and Immigration 
prevat clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
FILE: - Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: NOIJ 0 8 2w' 
LIN 06 233 53151 
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 deckion of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any fkther inquiry must be made to that office. 
Administrative Appeals Office 
I 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Off~ce (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. 8 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability. The 
director determined the petitioner had not established that he qualifies for classification as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, the petitioner argues that he meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 4 204.5(h)(3). 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall fmt be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are aliens 
described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim 
and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive 
documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) have 
consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals seeking immigrant 
visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (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. 8 204.5(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 he has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on August 8, 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 postdoctoral researcher in the 
"Section of Molecular Biology at the University of California at Davis." 
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 
Page 3 
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 recognizedprizes or 
awards for excellence in thejield of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted evidence showing that the American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB) presented him 
with a "Norton B. Gilula Award for outstanding research by a student" in 2005. The petitioner's submission also 
included a September 2005 issue of the ASCB Newsletter stating: "The Gilula Award . . . recognizes an 
outstanding graduate student or undergraduate student who has excelled in research." Additional information 
submitted by the petitioner fiom the ASCB's internet sites states: "The winner will be selected on merit and will 
received travel and per diem expenses to the ASCB Annual Meeting." 
The petitioner also submitted an "Award Certification'' fiom the China Scholarship Council stating that he 
"received [a] Chinese Government Award For Outstanding Self-Financed Students [Abroad] in 2004." The 
petitioner's submission also included articles' discussing the presentation of this award to nine students by the 
Consulate General of the People's Republic of China in San Francisco. These articles, which only briefly 
mention the petitioner's name as among the nine scholarship recipients, appeared in the China Press and online at 
www.xinhuanet.com and www.c~naconsulatesf.org. 
Being honored for his achievements as a graduate student does not constitute the petitioner's receipt of lesser 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the jield of endeavor. The 
preceding honors were intended to recognize student accomplishment rather than to recognize excellence 
among professionals already active in the research field. University study is not a field of endeavor, but 
rather training for future employment in a field of endeavor. The petitioner cannot restrict his field to exclude 
all those researchers who have long since completed their graduate studies and therefore-do not compete for 
student recognition. We cannot conclude that receipt of a student travel stipend or regional consular 
scholarship 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). Top researchers in the field do not aspire to receive awards 
limited by their terms to students. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a November 7,2006 letter fiom the 
Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation informing him that his was among "15 applications . . . 
recommended for funding" of a Damon Runyon Fellowship. This postdoctoral fellowship was awarded to the 
petitioner subsequent to the petition's filing date. A petitioner, however, must establish eligibility at the time 
of filing. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(12); see Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Regl. Commr. 1971).' 
Accordingly, the AAO will not consider the petitioner's receipt of this fellowship in this proceeding. 
Page 4 
Nevertheless, this fellowship is not a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in 
the field of endeavor, but rather a postdoctoral training program intended to enhance recipients' research 
abilities. A document submitted by the petitioner entitled "Fellowship Award Eligibility & Application 
Instructions" states: "Candidates must apply for the fellowship under the guidance of a Sponsor - a scientist 
(tenured, tenure-track or equivalent position) capable of providing mentorship to the fellow. The Sponsor 
should be actively engaged in the planning, execution and supervision of the proposed research . . . ." This 
document further states that applicants for the Fellowship are evaluated based on "the quality 
of the training provided by the research environment in which the proposed research is to be conducted and its 
potential for broadening and strengthening the candidate's ability to conduct innovative and substantive 
research." The petitioner's receipt of funding to conduct future research "under direct supervision of the 
Sponsor" is not an indication that he "is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the 
field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(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 classzjication 
is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or3elds. 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, the 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 evidence showing that he is a member of Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society. 
In a November 23, 2006 letter responding to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner quoted Sigma 
Xi's membership requirements as posted on its internet site at htt~://www.sigmaxi.org/ 
meniber/ioin/aualification.html,' which state: 
An individual who has shown noteworthy achievement as an original investigator in a field of pure or 
applied science is eligible for election to Full Membership. This noteworthy achievement must be 
evidenced by publication as a first author on two articles published in a refereed journal, patents, 
written reports or a thesis or dissertation. 
A "noteworthy achievement" is not necessarily an outstanding achievement. The above requirements indicate 
that the society does not take a particularly strict view of noteworthy achievements. Specifically, an individual is 
eligible for membership based on primary authorship of two papers. Further, authorship of one's thesis or 
dissertation also constitutes a noteworthy achievement for purposes of fulfilling the society's membership 
' The petitioner's November 23, 2006 letter cited this internet link (accessed by the AAO on October 25, 
2007) for information regarding the society's membership requirements. 
-- 
Page 5 
requirements. We cannot conclude that the preceding requirements are indicative of outstanding achievement, 
nor is there evidence showing that the petitioner was "judged by recognized national or international experts" in 
consideration of his admission to membership. 
The petitioner also submitted a September 2005 letter welcoming him as a member of the American Society 
of Cell Biology and his student membership card. According to information submitted by the petitioner from 
this society's internet site, "[flull members should have a Ph.D. or other professional degree (e.g., M.D., 
D.V.M.), or have equivalent experience in scientific research" and "[sltudent membership is available to 
candidates in good standing for a doctoral degree."2 There is no evidence showing that this society requires 
outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in the 
petitioner's or an allied field. 
In his November 23, 2006 letter responding to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner asserts that 
the Damon Runyon Fellowship awarded to him in November 2006 meets this criterion. The plain language of 
this regulatory criterion requires "membership in associations in the field for which classification is sought." 
The petitioner's postdoctoral fellowship is a scientific research training program rather than a membership in 
an association in his field. Further, as previously discussed, the fellowship was awarded subsequent to the 
petition's filing date. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(12); see Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. Accordingly, the 
AAO will not consider this fellowship in this proceeding. 
In light of the above, 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 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. 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 
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 identifying 
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 
scores of other authors. The submitted citations to the petitioner's work do not discuss the merits of his work, 
4 
2 
The record reflects that the petitioner's Ph.D. degree was awarded to him in June 2006, nine months after his 
admission to membership. 
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 6 
his standing in the field, any significant impact that his work has had on the field, or any other aspects of his 
work consistent with his sustained national or international acclaim. The numerous citations of the 
petitioner's work are more relevant to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(v) and (vi) and will be further 
addressed later in this decision. 
The petitioner submitted a July 29, 2005 article prepared by 
 University of California at Davis News 
Service, and posted on the university's website. This article, entitled "Motoring Proteins and Genetic Disease," 
was later posted online at www.sciencedaily.com (August 1, 2005) and medicalnewstoday.com (July 31, 2005). 
Identical passages fi-om this article also appeared in the Fall 2005 issue of the University of California at Davis 
Science Notebook. There is no evidence that this material constitutes published material in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media. The online material represents a press release issued by the university's 
news service and is not the result of independent journalistic reportage. Such material is simply not indicative of 
national or international acclaim. 
In his November 23, 2006 letter responding to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner asserts that a 
four-sentence evaluation posted on the Faculty of 1000 Biology internet site at www.fl000biolom.com also 
meets this criterion. This brief online evaluation of an article authored by the petitioner and six others does 
not constitute published material about him in professional or major trade publications or other major media. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an alliedjield of speciJication for which class$cation is sought. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) provides that "[a] petition for an alien of extraordinary ability must 
be accompanied by evidence that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her 
achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." Evidence of the petitioner's participation as a 
judge must be evaluated in terms of these requirements. The weight given to evidence submitted to fulfill the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iv), therefore, depends on the extent to which such evidence demonstrates, 
reflects,'or is consistent with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the alien's field of 
endeavor. A lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory defnition 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. 4 204.5(h)(2). For example, evaluating the 
work of accomplished professors on a national panel of experts is of far greater probative value than evaluating 
the work of graduate or undergraduate students. 
The petitioner submitted a June 26, 2006 letter from his research supervisor, Dr. - Professor 
of Cell Biology, University of California at Davis, stating: "[The petitioner] has been becoming one of the 
leading experts in the field and based upon @s achievement and expertise, he participated in reviewing peer's 
[sic] work for several prestigious journals including Science, Current Biology, Molecular Biology of the Cell 
and Genetics." The record, however, contains no documentary evidence to support Dr. Scholey's assertions 
regarding the petitioner's participation. 
Page 7 
The petitioner also submitted a March 6, 2006 e-mail from the Associate Editor of Genetics requesting that 
the petitioner review a paper for publication. We note that the plain language of this regulatory criterion 
requires "[elevidence of the alien's participation." The record, however, includes no documentary evidence 
showing that the petitioner actually participated in the review process for this paper. An invitation to review 
is not tantamount to actual participation. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted the cover pages of various 
manuscript drafts, some of which were later published, that bear a handwritten notation by the petitioner 
stating that he participated in reviewing them. The record, however, includes no evidence of the petitioner's 
actual participation as a reviewer to corroborate his handwritten claims. Going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. 
Matter of Sofici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 
I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). For example, there is no correspondence from the editorial staff of 
Science or Current Biology acknowledging the petitioner's participation as a reviewer. Nor is there 
documentary evidence of the petitioner's actual manuscript evaluations. 
Even if the petitioner were to submit substantive evidence of his participation in the peer review process for the 
aforementioned journals, we note that peer review is a routine element of the process by which articles are 
selected for publication in scientific journals. Occasional participation in peer review of this kind does not 
automatically demonstrate that the petitioner has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of 
his field. Reviewing manuscripts is recognized as a professional obligation of researchers who publish 
themselves in scientific journals. Normally a journal's editorial staff will enlist the assistance of numerous 
professionals in the field who agree to review submitted papers. It is common for a publication to ask several 
reviewers to review a manuscript and to offer comments. The publication's editorial staff may accept or 
reject any reviewer's comments in determining whether to publish or reject submitted papers. Without 
evidence that sets the petitioner apart from others in his field, such as evidence that he has participated in 
reviewing an unusually large number of articles, received independent requests from a substantial number of 
journals (as opposed to requests delegated to him by his immediate superiors), or served in an editorial 
position for a distinguished journal in the same manner as Dr. we cannot conclude that the 
petitioner meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signiJicance in the field. 
The petitioner submitted several letters of support discussing his research contributions. 
 We cite 
representative examples here. 
[The petitioner] has made major contributions to a series of publications on intraflagellar transport 
(IFT)-motors in the model organism, Caenorhabditis elegans which have significantly advanced our 
understanding of motor protein hnction, ciliary assembly and cilia-related diseases. For example, he 
4 
 For example, Dr. 
 states that he serves as editor of Journal of Biological Chemistry. 
- 
Page 8 
was the prime mover on our Nature paper describing the role of Bardet-Biedl syndrome ciliary 
disease proteins and a novel activator protein in regulation the functional coordination of IFT-motors 
and was a co-first authorship on a Nature Cell Biology paper that used mutants and time-lapse 
microscopy to resolve the puzzle of how two IFT-motors cooperate to build ciliary axonemes. In this 
work [the petitioner] made important contributions to the intellectual basis of this project, he 
performed the spinning disc confocal light microscopic motility assays and he carried out the 
molecular biology and genetics. 
Dr. - Professor, Department of Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology, Yale 
University, states: 
Among [the petitioner's] important contributions to the field, [the petitioner] is the first author of a 
Nature paper that described Bardet-Biedl syndrome proteins and another novel ciliary protein 
coordinate the motilities of molecular motors that transport ciliary precursors during cilia biogenesis. 
This is [a] groundbreaking discovery and it provides the first mechanistic insights to the cellular 
causes of Bardet-Biedl syndrome which had been a big puzzle for the field for a couple of years. [The 
petitioner] is co-first author in a Nature Cell Biology paper that demonstrates the functional 
relationship of two different molecular motors in building the sensory neuronal cilia. During his 
research, he largely improved the cellular imaging technology that allows a direct visualization and 
systematic characterization of the motilities of molecular motors and cargoes within the cilia. , . . In 
addition, [the petitioner] is co-first author in a brief paper published on Current Biology that provides 
the first evidence that a polycystic kidney disease protein, Qilin, participates in ciliogenesis and 
causes this disease in a ciliary dependent manner. 
Dr. , Professor of Cell and Molecular Biology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of 
Medicine, states: 
[The petitioner's] first contribution to the field is the resolution of how two molecular motors 
cooperate to transport cargo molecules to assemble and maintain the ciliary structure, a big puzzle in 
the field since 1999. To address this problem, [the petitioner] renovated the live cell imaging 
technology to directly and systematically visualize the motilities of motors and cargoes in normal and 
mutated animals. This cutting-edge technology has been widely used in cilia biology field. [The 
petitioner] is the co-first author of a paper published on Nature Cell Biology summarizing his 
findings, and this is an excellent paper . . . . Subsequently, [the petitioner] continued to study how the 
molecular motors are coordinated within the cilia during cilia biogenesis and he made one of most 
important discoveries in the field. [The petitioner] uncovered that Bardet-Biedl syndrome (BBS) 
proteins and a novel proteins are required to coordinate the motility of these molecular motors and are 
critical for normal ciliogenesis and his first authored paper based on his exciting finding was 
published on the top scientific journal Nature in 2005. This is a groundbreaking discovery and shed 
light on the cellular mechanisms of Bardet-Biedl syndrome which was once another fascinating 
puzzle in the field for a few years. 
Dr. 
 Assistant Professor, Korolinska Institute, Department of Biosciences and Nutrition, 
Sodertorn University College, Sweden, states: 
- 
Page 9 
[The petitioner] has been making very significant contributions to the molecular and cellular 
mechanisms of cilium biogenesis and human cilia diseases. Some of them are milestones in the field. 
[The petitioner] was one of the first scientists that innovated live cell imaging technologies so as to 
make possible the visualization and systematic characterization of transport events within cilia, a 
process called intraflagellar transport (IFT) absolutely essential for ciliogenesis. . . . Using this 
specialized technology continuously improved by himself, [the petitioner] was the first who resolved 
the long standing puzzle of how two IFT-motors cooperate to build sensory cilia and he was the co- 
first author on a Nature Cell Biology paper based on his discovery. His findings are striking and his 
technology is innovative and powerful. Scientists in the field are very interested in his live cell 
imaging technology and thus want to incorporate it into their own research projects. For example, I 
sent one of my graduate students, Evgeni Efimenko, to UC Davis where he learned this technique 
from [the petitioner] in 2005. 
[The petitioner] continued to investigate the regulatory mechanisms of ciliogenesis and cilia diseases, 
and made his most important contribution to the field. He published his first-authored Nature paper 
that describes how syndrome cilia disease proteins and a novel activator protein 
coordinate the motilities of 1ET-motors. These findings are revolutionary, and particularly, he was the 
first scientist who provided insights into the cellular hctions of Bardet-Biedl syndrome proteins, 
which was a fascinating puzzle for both cilia biology and BBS disease research for a number of years. 
His findings are thus a milestone in understanding and further clinical treatment of this cilia disease. 
[The petitioner's] Nature and Nature Cell Biology papers open a new area in understanding cilium 
biogenesis and human cilia diseases. 
Dr. Associate Professor, Department of Microbiology, Molecular Biology, and Biochemistry, 
University of Idaho, states that the petitioner's findings "have contributed in a very fundamental way to our 
understanding of the basic molecular and cellular controls of ciliogenesis." 
Dr. , Professor and Chairman, Department of Cell Biology and Anatomy, Graduate 
School of Medicine, University of Tokyo, states: 
[The petitioner] has been productive and made significant discoveries . . . . He is the first-author on a 
major paper published in Nature, which is the top scientific journal in the world, which [for the] first 
time demonstrate[s] how IFT-motors are coordinated by syndrome proteins and another 
novel ciliary protein. His elegant work, a combination of cutting-edge live cell imaging technology 
and genetics, was also the first one that offered insights to the exact cellular function of BBS proteins 
in ciliogenesis, which is an innovative discovery in understanding the cause of this disease and motor 
coordination. [The petitioner] is a co-first author of a Nature Cell Biology paper which demonstrated 
an interesting and novel cooperation mechanism of two IFT-motors in assembly and maintenance of 
cilia structure. 
'- 
Page 10 
In support of the preceding experts' statements, the petitioner submitted documentation showing dozens of 
independent cites to his published findings.5 These citation indices are solid evidence that other researchers 
have been influenced by the petitioner's work and are familiar with-it. This unusually large number of 
citations corroborates the experts' statements that the petitioner has made contributions of major significance 
in his field. The record reflects that the petitioner's original scientific contributions are important not only to 
the research institution 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 to the 
biomedical research 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 thefield, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of his authorship of articles appearing in publications such as Nature, 
Nature Cell Biology, and Current Biology. The petitioner also submitted evidence of scores of articles that 
cite to his work. These numerous citations demonstrate the significance of the petitioner's articles to the 
greater field. Therefore, the petitioner has established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
In his November 23, 2006 letter responding to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner states: "I 
displayed by research discoveries in a number of international scientific conferences. For the details of these 
presentations, please refer to my resume." We cannot rely upon the self-serving information contained in the 
petitioner's resume as evidence of his participation in international scientific conferences. Nevertheless, the 
petitioner's field is not in the arts. The plain language of this regulatory criterion indicates that it applies to 
visual artists rather than to biomedical 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. We find that the 
petitioner's authorship of conference abstracts and poster presentations is more relevant to the "authorship of 
scholarly articles" criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(vi), a criterion he has already met. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has peij6ormed in a leading or critical -role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
We cannot ignore that the petitioner's roles at the University of California at Davis were that of a graduate 
student (September 2001 to June 2006) and then a postdoctoral researcher. These subordinate roles are 
intended to provide temporary scientific training for a future professional career in the research field. While 
we accept that the University of California at Davis has a distinguished reputation, there is no evidence 
showing that the petitioner's work as a graduate student or postdoctoral researcher was equivalent to 
For example, the petitioner's response to the director's request for evidence included citation indices showing 
that his published work has been cited at least 96 times. 
- 
Page 1 1 
performing in a leading or critical role for the university. The record lacks evidence demonstrating how the 
petitioner's role differentiated him from other researchers at the university holding similar appointments, let alone 
more senior faculty (including tenured professors such as ~r.- 
In his November 23,2006 letter responding to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner asserts that he 
performed in a critical role for the ASCB. As discussed previously, the petitioner submitted an identification 
card reflecting that he held "student membership" in this society "VALID UNTIL: 12/31/2006." Nothing from 
the ASCB indicates that the petitioner's role was of significantly greater importance than that of other members 
of this society, including its "full members." Nor is there evidence that the petitioner has served in a leading 
or critical role as an ASCB officer or committee member. 
There is no evidence that the petitioner was responsible for the preceding organizations' success or standing to a 
degree consistent with the meaning of "leading or critical role" and indicative of sustained national or 
international acclaim. As such, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
In this case, we find that the petitioner meets only two of the regulatory criteria, three of which are required to 
establish eligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 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 sustained acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, the petitioner requests the opportunity to present oral argument based on the possibility that "there 
are technical issues related to biomedical research . . . that [the] NSC [Nebraska Service Center] overlooked." 
The regulations provide that the requesting party must adequately explain in writing why oral argument is 
necessh. Furthermore, CIS has the sole authority to grant or deny a request for oral argument and will grant 
argument only in cases involving unique factors or issues of law that cannot be adequately addressed in 
writing. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(b). In this instance, the petitioner has not specifically identified the "technical 
issues" to which he refers, nor has he adequately explained why oral argument should be held. Moreover, the 
written record of proceedings fully represents the facts and issues in this matter. Consequently, the request 
for oral argument is denied. 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself as a researcher 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 the 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. § 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
According to the biographic information in Dr. 
 letter, we note that this professor's achievements 
indicate that the top of the petitioner's field is a level far above his own level of achievement.