dismissed EB-1A Case: Biomedical Research

US. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: EAC 04 250 52063 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: AUIG 3 1 2005 
IN RE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant 1.0 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. 
Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 04 250 52063 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Ofice (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 11 53(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability in 
the sciences. The director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international 
acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
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 to the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
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. 
@ 204.5(h)(2). The specific requirements for supporting documents to establish that an alien has sustained 
national or international acclaim and recognition in his or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that 
the petitioner must show that he has earned sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on September 2, 2004, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability 
as a research scientist. At the time of filing, the petitioner was working as a Postdoctoral Researcher in the 
Molecular Cardiology Research Center (MCRC) at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine. 
The statute and regulations require the petitioner's acclaim to be sustained. The record reflects that the 
petitioner has been residing in the United States since March 2000. Given the length of time between the 
petitioner's arrival in the United States and the petition's filing date, it is reasonable to expect the petitioner to 
have earned,national acclaim in the United States during that time. The petitioner has had ample time to 
establish a reputation in this country. 
EAC 04 250 52063 
Page 3 
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, international rtzcognized 
award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, at least three of which 
must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. The 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 the$eld of endeavor. 
We note here that the plain wording of this criterion requires "nationally or internationally recognized" prizes 
or awards for excellence in the field. The burden is on the petitioner to demonstrate the level of recognition 
and achievement associated with his awards. 
The petitioner submitted a "Certificate of the Best Paper Award" issued in 2000 which states: "Your paper 
entitled 'Uncv (Uncovered): a new mutation causing hairloss on mouse' has been awarded the Second Prize 
of Best Research Paper by Beijing Association for Science and Technology." There is no evidence showing 
that this award is national in scope rather than local in scope. 
The petitioner submitted another "Certificate of the Best Paper Award" issued in 1992 which states: "Your 
paper entitled 'Effects of different treatment of boar semen on PMS, PNA, sperm DNA content and enzyme 
activity of semen plasma' has been awarded the Best Research Paper Award by the 6th Comnlission of 
Chinese Association of Refrigeration." 
The significance and importance of the petitioner's Best Paper Awards are not self-evident. The petitioner 
offers no supporting evidence showing that these certificates constitute top honors in his field at the national 
or international level. We note here that section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act requires extensive documentation 
of sustained national or international acclaim. Pursuant to the statute, the petitioner must provide adequate 
evidence to establish that the certificates presented under this criterion enjoy significant national or 
international stature. Simply alleging that an award is nationally recognized cannot suffice to satisfy this 
criterion. There is evidence showing the total number of Best Paper Awards annually presented by the 
preceding associations, the official criteria used in determining recipients, or the level of national altention or 
media coverage associated with the award presentations. Without further supporting evidence, we cannot 
conclude that the petitioner's Best Paper Awards constitute top scientific honors at the national or 
international level. 
The petitioner also submitted evidence showing that he received National Natural Scientific Foundation of 
China Grant Awards in 1995 and 1999. In regard to the research grants for which the petitioner 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 assureld 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 a national or international award to honor or recognize 
past achievement. Furthermore, we note that the funding for the petitioner's projects was awarded not by 
outside nomination, demonstrating the field's regard for his ability, but upon his application to the foundation 
providing the grant. Finally, we note that it is common for scientific research to be funded by grants from a 
EAC 04 250 52063 
Page 4 
variety of public and private sources. Therefore, we do not accept the assertion that the receipt of a research 
grant automatically elevates a scientist to the very top of his field. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classification is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognrized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
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 cbr current 
members, or payment of dues, do not satisfy this criterion as such requirements do not constitute outstanding 
achievements. In addition, it is clear from the regulatory language that members must be selected at the 
national or international level, rather than the local or regional level. Finally, 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 certificate from 1999 stating that he is a member of the "Young Scientist 
Committee Affiliated with Chinese Association for Laboratory Animal Science." The record, however, 
contains no evidence of the bylaws or official admission requirements for this association showing that it 
requires outstanding achievements of its members. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner's postdoctoral training position at the Moneli Chemical Senses 
Center (MCSC) in Philadelphia constitutes qualifying evidence under this criterion. ' The petitioner's 
temporary scientific training position at the MCSC from 2000 to 2001, however, does not constitute 
"membership in association" in the petitioner's field. 
Counsel also claims that the petitioner is a member of the Chinese Association for Transgenic Animal 
Science, the Beijing Association for Laboratory Animal Science, the Chinese Association fclr Animal 
Reproduction, the Chinese Association for Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, the Chinese Association 
for Genetics, and the American Institute of Biological Research, but the record contains no evidence of the 
petitioner's individual membership status in these associations. Without documentary evidence of the 
preceding association memberships, the assertions of counsel will not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. 
The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 
534 (BIA 1 988); Matter of Laureano, 1 9 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1 983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 1 7 I&N Dec. 
503,506 (BIA 1980). 
The petitioner has provided no evidence showing that membership in the above associations required 
. outstanding achievement in his field or that he was evaluated by national or international t:xperts in 
consideration of his admission to membership. The record contains no evidence to establish that these 
associations require outstanding achievement of their members in the same manner as highly exclusive 
associations such as the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. 
EAC 04 250 52063 
Page 5 
Published materials about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other mq'cv 
media, relating to the alien's work in the field 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. 
Counsel argues that citation of the petitioner's work by others in the field represents qualifying evidence 
under this criterion. We note, however, that the petitioner and his work were not the primary subject of the 
articles that cited his findings. If the petitioner is not the main subject of the articles or is not often named in 
the articles, then such articles fail to demonstrate his individual acclaim. Scientific articles which cite the 
petitioner's work are primarily about the author's own work, not the petitioner's work. As such, they cannot 
be considered qualifying published material about the petitioner's work. We cannot ignore that tire articles 
citing the petitioner's work similarly referenced scores of other authors. In the petitioner's field, it is the 
nature of research work to build upon work that has gone before. In some instances, prior work is expanded 
upon or supported. In other instances, prior work is superseded by the findings in current research work. In 
either case, the current researcher normally cites the work of the prior researchers. Clearly this is not the 
same thing as published material written about an individual's work in the field. This type of material does 
not discuss the merits of an individual's work, the individual's standing in the field, or any significant impact 
that his or her work has had on work in the field. Citations of the petitioner's work will be addressed under a 
separate criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work lof 
others in the same or an alliedfield of speciJication for which clmsiJication is sought. 
As previously noted, 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. For example, 
evaluating the work of accomplished professors as a member on a national panel of experts is of far greater 
probative value than evaluating graduate students in one's research laboratory. 
On appeal, counsel states: "From 1992 to 2000, [the petitioner] was the Principal Investigator of 'Breeding and 
Investigation on Characteristics of Ams: (Wistar) Closed Rat Colony,' which placed him in an appointed position 
to judge the work of those scientists and technicians who also worked on the project." We do not find that 
supervising others involved in one's research project is tantamount to judging the work of others in one's field for 
purposes of this criterion. There is no evidence showing that petitioner was the final authority on issues relating 
to the other scientists and technicians at the Institute of Jingfeng Medical Laboratory Animals where the 
project was undertaken. Nor is there any evidence of the petitioner's "participation" as a judge of the work of 
other scientists involved in this project (i.e., personnel records).' While a principal investigator may oversee 
I There is no evidence showing that the petitioner has formally reviewed the work of researchers in the form of official 
employee reviews or personnel assessments. 
EAC 04 250 52063 
Page 6 
the work of subordinates on a particular research project in his laboratory, such a role is routine and inherent 
to working in a scientific laboratory. It does not, however, elevate the petitioner above almost all others in his 
field at the national or international level. The petitioner's oversight of the preceding research project is not 
indicative of national or international acclaim and does not fulfill this criterion. 
The petitioner submitted a confirmation letter from the Beijing Association for Laboratory Animal Science 
indicating that he was the reviewer of a single paper published in Laboratory Animal Science and Administration 
in 1997. We note that peer review of manuscripts is a routine element of the process by which articles are 
selected for publication in scholarly journals. Occasional participation in peer review of this kind does not 
automatically demonstrate that the petitioner has earned sustained national or international acclaim at the very 
top of his field. Reviewing manuscripts is recognized as a professional obligation of scientists 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 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 peer-reviewed an unusually large number 
of manuscripts for publication in various scientific journals or received multiple independent requests for his 
services from a substantial number of journals, we cannot conclude that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
The petitioner submitted documentation from a 1999 issue of Laboratory Animal Science and Administration 
indicating that he was one of numerous individuals who served on its editorial board. However, there is no 
evidence showing that serving on the editorial board of this journal is indicative of national or international 
acclaim. For example, the petitioner's appellate submission includes a comprehensive list of hundreds of 
internationally published journals and their corresponding "Journal Impact Factor." Interestingly, although 
this voluminous list includes a large number of distinguished Chinese journals, Laboratory Animal Science 
and Administration appears nowhere on the list. Participation on the editorial board of journal with limited 
distribution or minimal impact (as shown by its impact factor) would not satis@ this criterion. Without 
evidence showing that serving on the editorial board of Laboratory Animal Science and Administration is 
equivalent in stature to serving on the editorial boards of journals such as Molecular and Cell Biology or 
Genome Research, we cannot conclude that the petitioner's evidence fulfills this criterion. 
The petitioner submitted a letter indicating that in 1999 he was one of seven members of an appraisal 
committee for the project "Cryopreservation by vitrification of mammalian embryos." The record, however, 
contains no evidence showing that participation on such a committee is unusual or that it elevates him above 
almost others in his field. 
We cannot ignore the statute's demand for sustained national or international acclaim. Subsequent to his 
arrival in the United States in March 2000, there is no indication that the petitioner has evaluated tht: work of 
established researchers or performed peer review for journals with a significant impact factor. The 
petitioner's limited review activity in the late 1990's and his lack of review activity in the three year period 
preceding this petition's filing date is not indicative of sustained national or international acclaim. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientzjic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the$eld. 
EAC 04 250 52063 
Page 7 
The petitioner submitted six letters of support. 
~r~ssociate Member, MCSC, was the petitioner's research supervisor at MCSC. Dr. = 
states: 
[The petitioner] has made three important original scientific and research contributions . . . . The 
problem of dissecting the genetic basis of obesity is that genes have simple effects by they also have 
complex effects, and two genes may interact. To study this problem in a model system, [the petitioner] 
to his main area of expertise, positional cloning methods in mice. [The petitioner] completed the 
- genotyping of mouse DNA samples from a cross between strains that differ in their susceptibility to 
obesity, and recently published a paper on this topic in Mammalian Genome . . . . 
[The petitioner] has also made an important contribution to the discovery of a locus on mouse 
chromosome 4 (Sac locus) that contributes to the intake of sweeteners. This discovery was made 
through the use of positional cloning methods, and [the petitioner] played a critical role in the 
development of genetic markers near the Sac locus. The resulting paper is published in the journal 
Chemical Senses. 
One of the most intractable and interesting issues in positional cloning research for complex traits is the 
identification of the exact nucleotide changes that influence the phenotype. To try to understand the 
molecular basis of the effect of the Sac locus, [the petitioner] analyzed the DNA sequence from 30 
strains of mice, comparing genotype and phenotype. Based upon thee results, we prioritized the 89 
sequence variants most likely to affect phenotype. This work was well received by reviewers and is in 
press in the Journal of Neuroscience. 
The petitioner submitted a copy of the article from the Journal of Neuroscience indicating thi~t it was 
published in January 2004. We accept that petitioner's published work has yielded some useful and valid 
results; however, it is apparent that any scientific manuscript, in order to be accepted in for publication, must 
offer new and useful information to the pool of knowledge. It does not follow that every individual whose 
scholarly research is accepted for publication has made a major contribution in his field. Without extensive 
documentation showing that the petitioner's findings have been unusually influential or highly acclaimed 
throughout the greater field, we cannot conclude that he meets this criterion. 
ellow at the MCSC, states that he 
supervised the petitioner for 1.5 year "[The petitioner's] work in my 
laboratory is reflected in six peer-reviewed articles that have been published or are in press where he is a co- 
auth-es not indicate that the petitioner was the first author or lead researcher on any 
studiecublished by researchers at the MCSC. Nevertheless, published work falls under the next criterion, a 
criterion that we find the evidence in this case adequately satisfies. Here it should be emphasized that the 
EAC 04 250 52063 
Page 8 
regulatory criteria are separate and distinct from one another. Because separate criteria exist for published 
work and contributions of major significance, Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) 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 works and citations under the next criterion. 
Dr. further states: 
[The petitioner] is also a co-author on a U.S. patent 601247,443 (Gene and sequence variation 
associated with sensing carbohydrate compounds and other sweeteners). After working in my 
laboratory for one and half years, [the petitioner] moved to his current laboratory at the University of 
Pennsylvania to obtain training in the area of developmental biology, and in transgenic and gene 
targeting techniques. . . . The success of [the petitioner] in completion of his studies was accompanied 
by a success in his development as an independent scientist. . . . 
h 
entions the petitioner's pursuit of "training" at both the MCSC and the University of 
Pennsylvania. T e visa classification sought by the petitioner, however, is intended for aliens already at the 
top of their respective fields, rather than for those individuals progressing toward the top at some urlspecified 
future time. In regard to the petitioner's co-authorship of a patent application, there is no evidence showing 
that this patent filing represents a contribution of major significance in the petitioner's field. We note here 
that anyone may file a patent application, regardless of whether the invention constitutes a significant 
contribution. According to statistics released by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), which are 
available on its website at www.uspto.~ov, the USPTO has approved over one hundred thousand pintents per 
year since 1991. In 2001, for example, the USPTO received 345,732 applications and granted 183,975 
patents. Therefore, given the amount of patent applications that the USPTO receives on an annual basis, we 
find it implausible that simply fiiing a patent application automatically qualifies as a contribution of major 
significance in the field of genetic research. In this case, there is no evidence showing that the patent 
application related to the petitioner's findings was approved by the USPTO or that these findings were widely 
implemented by pharmaceutical manufacturers. 
ofessor of Medical Genetics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, states that he and the 
petitioner have had "a collaborative relationship since 1998." He further states: "[The petitioner] has well- 
trained [sic] in animal genetics, breeding and reproduction. Because of his talent and motivation' he 
discovered a spontaneous mutation, Uncv. which results in disturbances of skin. and immune and 
reproductive functions."oes not explain how the petitioner's discovery has had a significant 
national or international impact. 
~r. ~ssistant Professor of Medicine and Cell and Biology at the University 
of Pennsylvania, states that he is the petitioner's direct supervisor. Dr. further states: 
I have known [the petitioner] since 2001, when he joined my lab as a postdoctoral fellow. 
EAC 04 250 52063 
Page 9 
[The petitioner] has shown that Foxp4 regulates both heart and lung development and has performed 
crucial functional studies indicating that Foxp4 dimerizes with other Foxp proteins. Furthermore, 
through gene knock-out technology in mice, he has demonstrated that Foxp4 results in the formation of 
two hearts. Thus, his studies have revealed a critical new understanding of early heart development, 
which will likely result in a paradigm shift in how the field perceives events leading to the formation of 
a single heart tube. 
We accept that the petitioner's studies have contributed to the pool of knowledge in his .field, but Dr. 
ssertion that the petitioner' findings "will likely result in a paradigm shift" is not adequate to 
establish that such findings are already nationally or internationally recognized as a major contribution. A 
I petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing. See Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45 (Comm. 
197 1). 
of Southern 6California, states that she has a 
er resume indicates thatlshe co-authored a paper with Dr. 
many o-receding observations. She 
states that the petitioner's studies "identify novel pathways critical for early heart development" and "have 
enormous potential to revolutionize the understanding of cardiac development." 
irector, Oncology Research Institute, and Distinguished Professor of Molecular 
Medicine, Clemson University, states that he is "aware of [the petitioner] and his work on the Uncv mutation 
as well as the identification of the Bwq5, Bwq6, Bdln3 - Bdln6, Adip2, Adip5, Adip9, Foxp4, and GATA7 
genes," but he does not explain how this work represents a "contribution of major significance" in the field. 
fers to the petitioner as "a fully trained animallgenetic scientist," but he offers no statements 
indicating that the petitioner's research achievements elevate him above almost all other scientists in the 
molecular genetic research community (such as tenured professors who have long since completed their 
postdoctoral training). 
Aside fro-he preceding witnesses consist of three of the petitioner's supervisors, a researcher 
with whom the petitioner collaborates, and a researcher who closely collaborates with the petitioner's current 
supervisor. In regard to the individuals offering letters of support, we note that all but one appears to have no 
known ties to the petitioner. This fact indicates that while the petitioner's work is valued by those close to 
him, others outside his immediate circle are largely unaware of his research and do not attribute the same 
level of importance to his work. With regard to the personal recommendation of individuals who have 
worked at or in collaboration with the petitioner's laboratories, the source of the recommendations is a highly 
relevant consideration. These letters are not first-hand evidence that the petitioner has earned sustained 
acclaim outside of his affiliated institutions. If the petitioner's reputation is mostly limited to those 
institutions, then he has not achieved national or international acclaim regardless of the expertise of his 
witnesses. An individual with sustained national or international acclaim should be able to provide ample 
unsolicited materials reflecting that acclaim. 
Counsel argues that the petitioner's conference presentations satisfy this criterion. In the fields of science and 
medicine, however, acclaim is generally not established by the mere act of presenting one's work at a 
scientific conference. The record contains no documentation demonstrating that the presentation of one's 
EAC 04 250 52063 
Page 10 
work is unusual in the petitioner's field or that the invitation to present at conferences where the petitioner 
spoke was a privilege extended to only a few top researchers. Participation in scientific conferences and 
symposia of the petitioner's kind is routine and expected in the medical research community. Many 
professional fields regularly hold conferences and symposiums 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 his field at the national or international 
level. The record contains no evidence showing that the petitioner's conference presentations commanded an 
unusual level of attention in comparison to those of other conference participants or that he has st:wed as a 
keynote speaker at a national or international scientific conference. 
In this case, there is no indication that the petitioner's past contributions far exceed those of other experienced 
genetic scientists. The evidence is not adequate to support a finding that petitioner's work is nationally or 
internationally recognized throughout his field as contribution of major significance. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of schoIarIy articles in the$eld, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media 
The petitioner provided evidence of his co-authorship of articles appearing in publications such as Chemical 
Senses, Mammalian Genome, Genetical Research, Journal of Neuroscience, and Genome Research. The 
petitioner was also the first author of an article published in Science on September 10,2004. This article was 
published subsequent to the petition's filing date. See Matter of Katigbak at 45. 
We do not find that publication of scholarly articles is presumptive evidence of sustained national or 
international acclaim; we must also consider the greater scientific community's reaction to those articles. 
When judging the influence and impact that the petitioner's published work has had, the very act of 
publication is not as reliable a gauge as is the citation history of the published works. Publication alone may 
serve as evidence of originality, but it is difficult to conclude that a published article is important or 
influential if there is little evidence that other researchers have relied upon the petitioner's findings. In this 
case, the petitioner submitted citation indices showing that his articles have been cited by other researchers. The 
number of cites to the petitioner's articles demonstrates an acceptable degree of interest in, and reliance on, 
his work. Based on the citation indices, we find that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has per$ormed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner's role at the MCSC and the MCRC was that of a "post-doctoral researcher." Such a role 
represents temporary training for a future professional career in a field of endeavor. Furthermore, we 
cannot ignore that the petitioner's role, when compared to that of his witnesses from the MCSC and the 
MCRC, was that of a subordinate. The record contains no evidence showing the extent to which the 
petitioner has exercised substantial control over personnel or research decisions executed on behalf of the 
MCSC or the MCRC. While we accept that the MCSC and the MCRC have distinguished reputations, there 
is no evidence showing that the petitioner's role was of significantly greater importance than that of the other 
researchers employed by these organizations (including tenured faculty). The petitioner's evidence fails to 
EAC 04 250 52063 
Page 11 
demonstrate that he has performed in a leading or critical role for a distinguished organization, or that his 
involvement has earned him sustained national or international acclaim. 
In this case, we find that the evidence satisfies only one of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(:h)(3). 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate that the 
alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim, is one of the small percentage who has risen to 
the very top of the field of endeavor, and that the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. The petitioner in this case has failed to demonstrate that he meets at least three 
of the criteria that must be satisfied to establish the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify 
as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself to such an extent that he may 
be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the 
very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set him significantly above 
almost all others in his field at the national or international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established 
eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(lXA) 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.