dismissed EB-1A Case: Biomedical Research

U.S. Department of Ho~neland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Of$ce ofAdministrative Appeals MS 2090 
identifYine data deleted 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
Clearly im:vwm"d U. S. Citizenship 
invasion of p~~~fi2i privac) 
 and Immigration 
SRC 07 260 55985 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 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). 
i? &%xdnci 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas 
Service Center, and is now before the Admhstrative 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. 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien 
of extraordinary ability in the sciences. The director determined that the petitioner had not established 
the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. More specifically, the director found that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate 
receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
On appeal, counsel argues that the petitioner meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3). 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are 
aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, 
business, or athletics whlch 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. $204.5(h)(2). 
 The specific requirements for supporting 
documents to establish that an alien has sustained national or international acclaim and recognition 
in his or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The relevant 
criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that 
he has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
Page 3 
This petition, filed on August 28, 2007, 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 
Visiting Fellow in the Endocrinology and Reproduction Research Branch, National Institute of Child 
Health and Human Develo~ment WICHD). National Institutes of Health WM). The ~etitioner 
worked under the supervisibn o- Chief and Head of the'secGon on Molecular 
Endocrinology. In the summer of 2008, the petitioner joined the laboratory of - 
-1 Assistant Professor of Pediatrics, Division of Newborn Medicine, Children's Hospital 
Boston, Harvard Medical School. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally 
recognized award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, 
at least three of which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to 
qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. A petitioner, however, cannot establish eligibility for this 
classification merely by submitting evidence that simply relates to at least three criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
fj 204.5(h)(3). In determining whether the petitioner meets a specific criterion, the evidence itself 
must be evaluated in terms of whether it is indicative of or consistent with sustained national or 
international acclaim. A lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory 
definition of "extraordinary ability" as "a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of 
that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. 
$ 204.5(h)(2). The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria under 
8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3).' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in thejeld of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted a certificate stating that he received a "2001 Student Travel Award" from 
the Society for In Vitro Biology (SIVB) at the "Congress on In Vitro Biology June 16 - 20, 2001 ." 
The petitioner also submitted an article from the July-September 2001 issue of the SIVB newsletter, 
In Vitro Report, reflecting that he was among several "student award" recipients at the 2001 
Congress on In Vitro Biology. There is no evidence from the SIVB showing the criteria for 
determining a recipient's eligibility for this award. Nevertheless, we cannot conclude that that the 
petitioner's receipt of funding to offset travel expenses is tantamount to his receipt of a nationally or 
internationally recognized award for excellence in the field. The petitioner's selection for an award 
limited by its terms to students is not an indication that he is among "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. fj 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 educational studies. 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 hture time. 
' The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
The petitioner submitted a July 7, 1997 letter from the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research 
(CSIR), Human Resource Development Group, Examination Unit stating: "This is to inform you 
that you have qualified the above Examination for consideration for Award of Junior Research 
Fellowship in LIFE SCIENCES under the CSIR Fellowship Schemes. The Award of Fellowship 
will be subject to your satisfying the eligibility conditions . . . ." We cannot conclude that 
successfully passing a standardized test and qualifying for a "Junior Research Fellowship" 
constitutes a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the field of 
endeavor. Further, we note that eligibility for the preceding fellowship was limited to students 
seeking to pursue graduate studies. University study is not a field of endeavor, but rather training for 
future employment in a field of endeavor. The petitioner's receipt of educational funding from the 
CSIR is not an indication that he is among "that small percentage who have risen to the very top of 
the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(2). 
The petitioner submitted a December 6, 2001 letter from 1- 
International Association for Plant Tissue Culture & Biotechnology (IAPTC&B), stating: 
I would like to congratulate you on . . . being selected as one of the recipients of an 
IAPTC&B Fellowship to attend the loth IAPTC&B Congress. 
Please confirm that you accept the fellowship and will personally present your poster at the 
Congress. 
Your fellowship will cover the registration fee (which includes the opening reception, three 
boxed lunches, the banquet, and a copy of the proceedings) and a shared hotel room . . . . 
The petitioner also submitted a listing reflecting that he was among 84 "Fellowship Recipients" at 
the loth IAPTC&B Congress. There is no evidence from the IAPTC&B showing the criteria for 
determining a recipient's eligibility for this fellowship or other documentary evidence which 
demonstrates that the fellowship is recognized beyond the awarding entity itself and therefore 
commensurate with a national or international award. Nevertheless, we cannot conclude that that the 
petitioner's receipt of funding to attend this conference is tantamount to his receipt of a nationally or 
internationally recognized award for excellence in the field. 
The petitioner submitted a Certificate of Achievement from the International Crops Research 
Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) Training and Fellowships Program for his 
"successful completion of Apprenticeship in Cellular and Molecular Biology Division [CMBD] . . . 
from 20 May to 01 July 1996." The petitioner also submitted a page from the May 31, 1996 issue 
of the ICRISAT Happenings newsletter identifying him as an "apprentice" and stating that he was 
"doing his summer project work with CMBD, studying molecular biology techniques." The 
petitioner's successful completion of a six-week apprenticeship program is not tantamount to his 
receipt of a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in his field of 
endeavor. The petitioner's completion of this apprenticeship program offers no meaningful 
Page 5 
comparison between him and experienced professionals in the field who have long since completed 
their molecular biology training. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a certificate from the 
American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (ASBMB) issued to him "in recognition 
of. . . participation in the ASBMB Graduate/Postdoctoral Travel Award Program in San Diego, CAY 
April 4-5, 2008." The petitioner received this certificate subsequent to the petition's filing date. A 
petitioner, however, must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. $8 103.2(b)(l), (12); 
Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Regl. Commr. 1971). Accordingly, the AAO will not 
consider this evidence in this proceeding. Nevertheless, there is no evidence showing that this 
certificate is a nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence, rather than simply an 
acknowledgment of his participation in the program. 
The petitioner's response also included a May 14, 2007 e-mail stating: "On behalf of the Sigma- 
Aldnch Team, we would like to thank you for stopping by our booth at Experimental Biology and 
taking our Gene Hunt Challenge. We are pleased to inform you that you are the lucky winner of our 
$3,000 Scientific Travel Award. . . . Thank you for playing!" There is no evidence from the Gene 
Hunt Challenge organizer showing the criteria for determining a recipient's eligibility for this travel 
award. Further, the phrases "you are the lucky winner" and "Thank you for playing!" suggest that 
winning this award was based on a game of chance rather than excellence in the field of endeavor. 
In this instance, the petitioner has not established that winning the Sigma-Aldrich Gene Hunt 
Challenge Scientific Travel Award is tantamount to his receipt of a nationally or internationally 
recognized award for excellence in the field. 
The plain language of the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3)(i) specifically requires that the 
petitioner's awards be nationally or internationally recognized in the field of endeavor and it is his 
burden to establish every element of ths criterion. In this case, there is no evidence showing that the 
petitioner's awards had a significant level of recognition beyond the presenting organizations. 
Accordingly, 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 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 documentation showing that he is a "Fellow/Student Associate" member of 
the Endocrine Society and a lifetime member of the Biotechnology Society of India. The petitioner 
also submitted evidence showing that he is a regular member of both the American Association for 
the Advancement of Science and the American Physiological Society. The submitted documentation 
includes general information about the preceding organizations, but the record does not include 
evidence (such as membership bylaws) showing their admission requirements. In this case, there is 
no evidence showing that the Endocrine Society, Biotechnology Society of India, the American 
Association for the Advancement of Science, or the American Physiological Society require 
outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international 
experts in the petitioner's field or an allied one. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that 
he meets this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in thejeld for which classzjcation is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary 
translation. 
In general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the petitioner 
and, as stated in the regulations, be printed in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media. To qualify as major media, the publication should have significant national or international 
distribution. An alien would not earn acclaim at the national level from a local publication. Some 
newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally serve a particular locality but would qualify as 
major media because of significant national distribution, unlike small local community papers.2 
The petitioner initially submitted internet search results from Google Scholar and IS1 Web of 
Science demonstrating a single cite to his published articles. In response to the director's request for 
evidence, the petitioner submitted additional search results from Google Scholar and IS1 Web of 
Science and copies of three articles that cite to his work. This documentation reflects that the 
petitioner's body of work has been cited approximately ten times. Regarding the scientific articles 
that merely reference the petitioner's published work, we note that the plain language of this 
regulatory criterion requires that the published material be "about the alien." In this case, the articles 
citing the petitioner's work are primarily about the authors' work, not the footnoted material identifjmg 
the petitioner. With regard to this criterion, a footnoted reference to the alien's work without evaluation 
is of minimal probative value. Further, we note that the articles citing the petitioner's work similarly 
referenced numerous other authors. The submitted citations to the petitioner's work do not discuss 
the merits of his work, his standing in the field, any significant impact that his work has had on the 
field, or any other aspects of his work so as to be considered published material about the petitioner 
as required by this criterion. Instead, these citations are more relevant to the regulatory criterion at 
8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3)(vi) and will be addressed there. 
2 
 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. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major significance in the field. 
The petitioner submitted several letters of recommendation discussing his research contributions. 
On appeal, counsel argues that the director failed to adequately review the content of the 
recommendation letters. We cite representative examples here. 
chief and Head of the Section on Molecular Endocrinology, Endocrinology and 
Reproduction Research Branch, NICHD, NIH, states: 
In his work on Oncology and Experimental therapeutics at University of South Florida, [the 
petitioner] investigated the inhibition of histone deacetylases (HDACs) as a new strategy in 
human cancer therapy. The cellular models that he utilized in these studies include human 
breast cancer and leukemia cells. An additional major focus of research was to determine the 
molecular mechanisms by which histone modifications, e.g., acetylation, de-methylation and 
phosphorylation, molecular determinants in human breast cancer and leukemia cells. The 
effects of histone deacetylase inhibitors on Her-2, AKT and c-Raf in breast cancer cells, BCR 
ABL and FLT-3 in leukemia, as well as the effect on the levels of c-FLIP and TRAIL death 
receptors in leukemia cells, were investigated. Histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitors are 
emerging as an exciting new class of potential anticancer agents for the treatment of solid 
and hematological malignancies. These drugs used have shown impressive anticancer 
activity invivo with remarkably little toxicity in preclinical studies and are currently in phase 
I clinical trial. 
[The petitioner's] expertise has been significantly advanced since his participation in the NM 
program, where his experience was comprehensively broadened through conducting studies 
in the interdisciplinary areas involving endocrinology, molecular biology, and cellular 
biology. At the National Institutes of Health, [the petitioner] is investigating on a novel 
testicular gene, the Gonadotropin-regulated testicular RNA helicase (GRTWDdx25). He 
first demonstrated that GRTH is a major regulator of spermatogenesis in the prevention of 
testicular germ cell apoptosis. Subsequently, [the petitioner] demonstrated that GRTH is an 
integral component of mRNP particles, a phosphoprotein, which is essential for testicular 
germ cells development in our gene targeted mouse model. He studied the subcellular 
localization and phosphor-modification of GRTH and demonstrated two GRTH protein 
species that are differentially distributed in cellular compartment of mouse testis. [The 
petitioner's] elucidation of the regulation of pro- and anti-apoptotic protein expression by 
GRTH in gonadal cells has shed new insights into the understanding of the mechanism 
involved in the male reproduction. 
While the petitioner's superiors at the University of South Florida assigned him to investigate the 
inhibition of histone deacetylases (LIDACs) as a new strategy in human cancer therapy, there is no 
evidence showing that he conceived this treatment strategy or that the intellectual property rights for 
the drugs involved in the phase I clinical trial were primarily attributable to his original work. 
Moreover, there is no evidence demonstrating that the clinical trials achieved significant success or 
that the petitioner's work was otherwise indicative of an original scientific contribution of major 
significance in his field. 
states: 
In NIH, [the petitioner] is investigating on a testicular novel gene Gonadotropin-regulated 
testicular RNA helicase (GRTWDdx25). He first demonstrated that GRTH is a master 
regulator of spermatogenesis in the prevention of testicular germ cell apoptosis. 
Subsequently, [the petitioner] demonstrated that GRTH is an integral component of mRNP 
particles, a phosphoprotein, which is essential for testicular germ cells development in our 
gene targeted mouse model. He studied on the subcellular localization and phosphor- 
modification of GRTH and demonstrated two GRTH protein species that are differentially 
distributed in cellular compartment of mouse testis. . . . He also demonstrated participation 
of CAMP-PKA in the post-translational modification of the 61 kDa GRTH species. [The 
petitioner] also helped in developing micro array analysis for germ cell specific RNA 
expression profiles. [The petitioner's] elucidation of the regulation of pro- and anti-apoptotic 
protein expression by GRTH in gonadal cells sheds new insights on the understanding of the 
mechanism involved in the male reproduction. 
Throughout these projects, [the petitioner] has developed himself to a knowledgeable and 
capable reproduction biologist and molecular endocrinologist. [The petitioner] is a co-author 
of several papers in this subject and some other papers are in the process for publication. 
[The petitioner] . . . was also selected to present his study to the International Annual meeting 
of the Endocrine Society (2007) in Toronto, Canada this June. 
In the same manner as ~ssistant Professor and Interim Chief, 
Division of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology, University of Florida, discusses the petitioner's 
conference presentations and states: 
[The petitioner] worked at the prestigious National Institutes of Health where he has made 
seminal contributions to studies on characterization of the function and regulation of 
Gonadotropin-Regulated Testicular Helicase (GRTH), an enzyme that is critical for the 
progression of sperm maturation. . . . For this project [the petitioner] was exposed to cutting 
edge gene expression screening technologies as they became available and as a result 
acquired an advanced level of expertise in the genomics field. He developed innovative 
strategies for understanding the process of sperm maturation. He has been invited to present 
evidence of his work at a large number of international scientific meetings and conferences 
including the Keystone Meeting in Colorado, America Society for Biochemistry and 
Molecular Biology in San Diego, and Endocrine Society in Toronto, Canada and San 
Francisco, CA. . . . His work . . . was accepted for publication in top ranking journals like 
Journal of Biological Chemistry and Human Molecular Reproduction. 
With regard to the petitioner's co-authorship of research papers and his conference presentations, we 
find that his 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 hlly address the petitioner's published and presented work under the next 
criterion. 
Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Adjunct Research Dean of 
the Federal University of Santa Maria, Brazil, states: 
[The petitioner's] inventive research and development work in the field of the Cancer therapy 
for the treatment of those suffering from Leukemia and Breast Cancer has led to path 
breaking therapy predictions for these diseases. For the first time he used the combination of 
the drugs (LBH589 and 17-AAG) in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and chronic 
myelogenous leukemia (CML) cells. 
[The petitioner] has developed himself to a knowledgeable and capable reproduction 
biologist and molecular endocrinologist . . . . [The petitioner's] elucidation of the pro- and 
anti- anti-apoptotic protein expression by GRTH in gonadal cells has a great impact on the 
understanding of the mechanism involved in the male reproduction. 
Executive Director for the Office of Sponsored Research Administration and 
Regents Distinguished Professor of Biology, Savannah State University, Georgia, states: 
During his studies [the petitioner] found LBH 589, a novel Cinnarnic Hydroxamic Acid 
Analogue was effective in Leukemia and Breast Cancer. Due to his initial efforts, now this 
drug is in Phase I clinical studies in patients with refractory hematologic malignancies. 
At the NM, [the petitioner] investigated the aspects related to the hnction of Gonadotropin 
Regulated Testicular RNA Helicase (GRTH) which include studies on genes that are 
concerned to apoptotic events and fertility at the meiosis in GRTH null mouse. Since 
GRTH/Ddx25 was crucial for fertility in male mice, he initiated studies to determine the 
relevance of this gene to human spermatogenesis and demonstrated GRTH as a master 
regulator of spermatogenesis which prevents testicular germ cell apoptosis. His study also 
provided evidence for a GRTH/Ddx25 gene mutation at G727A that might be involved in 
male infertility of some patients with idiopathic non-obstructive azoospermia. This mutation 
leads to defective phosphorylation of GRTH protein. These findings led to new openings in 
field of male sterility in humans. 
[The petitioner] worked on understanding apoptosis in Gonadotropin Regulated Testicular 
RNA helicase (Ddx25/GRTH) Knock out mice model. He studied mouse in vivo 
experimental model and used an advanced gene expression profiling technology to study the 
regulation of sperm maturation. [The petitioner] has performed excellent work in GRTH 
project and is a coauthor of a JBC [Journal of Biological Chemistry] paper in this subject. 
His investigation revealed GRTWDdx25 is a master regulator of spermatogenesis which 
prevents testicular germ cell apoptosis. In our collaboration with [the petitioner] in genetic 
studies in normal and infertile Japanese patients, sequencing results showed gene mutation at 
G727A might be involved in male infertility and defective GRTH phosphorylation. Apart 
from being successful molecular biologist, [the petitioner] developed micro array analysis for 
germ cell specific RNA expression profiles proving himself expert in advanced gene 
expression profiling technology. 
I first met [the petitioner] during our days at NICHD, NIH . . . where he and I worked 
together on characterization of the Gonadotropin Regulated Testicular RNA Helicase 
knockout mice model. He investigated the aspects related to the function of Gonadotropin 
Regulated Testicular RNA Helicase (GRTH) which include studies on genes that are 
concerned to apoptotic events and fertility at the meiosis in GRTH null mouse. 
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. 
Assistant Professor of Molecular Medicine, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College 
of Medicine, states: 
[The petitioner] has made recognizable advances in the area of Oncology and Experimental 
therapeutics. [The petitioner] has investigated inhibition of histone deacetylases (HDACs) as 
a new strategy in human cancer therapy. His research includes exploring novel approaches 
to target mechanisms of resistance against anti-cancer agents. The cellular models utilized in 
these studies include human breast cancer and leukemia cells. He investigated the 
mechanism of cytotoxicity of the combinations of HDAC inhibitors and HSP 90 inhibitors, 
or HDAC inhibitors and novel BCR-ABL kinase inhibitors, against chronic myelogenous 
leukemia cells refractory to treatment due to mutations or amplifications of BCR-ABL. A 
similar combination of HDAC inhibitor and FLT-3 kinase inhibitor was also evaluated 
against acute myeloid leukemia (AML) cells. These studies are very important to determine 
Page 11 
how chaperone biology and chromatin modifications can be therapeutically exploited against 
human breast cancer and leukemia. 
In the area of Reproductive Biology, [the petitioner's] efforts have contributed to the 
characterization of a mutation in infertile patients, in the gene encoding Gonadotropin 
Regulated Testicular Helicase (GRTH/Ddx25), which might be involved in male sterility. He 
is currently investigating the Knock-out mouse model of this enzyme. GRTH is a critical 
enzyme for the progression of spermatogenesis. His work demonstrated that GRTH acts as a 
master regulator of spermatogenesis which prevents testicular germ cell apoptosis. 
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 his work, rather than how his past research already qualifies as 
original contributions of major significance in the field. A petitioner cannot file a petition under this 
classification based on the expectation of future eligibility. Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
, Assistant Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, and Associate 
Biologist, Brigham & Women's Hospital, states: 
hematology, specifically, in neonatal hematology. 
In his current work, [the petitioner] is studying the cellular and molecular mechanisms of 
platelet homeostasis in neonates. He is focused on defining the cellular and molecular 
mechanisms leading to different rates of platelet production by adult or neonatal 
megakaryocytes (platelet producing cells residing in bone marrow). Findings from these 
studies will eventually lead to more appropriate therapies for thrombocytopenic neonates, 
and would also be applicable to the treatment of thrombocytopenia following cord blood 
transplants, since the transplanted cells are neonatal in origin. Such a task will surely bring 
substantial benefits to the nation as a whole. 
Assistant Professor of Pediatrics, Division of Newborn Medicine, 
Children's Hospital Boston, Harvard Medical School, states: 
[The petitioner] joined our laboratory this Summer, and it immediately became evident what 
an outstanding addition he was. His extraordinary expertise was demonstrated when he 
quickly began to characterize differences in gene expression between neonates and adults. 
He is currently characterizing growth factors and microenvironrnental signals required for 
full megakaryocyte maturation in neonates, and is establishing the mechanisms that uncouple 
megakaryocyte DNA replication and cell division, leading to polyploidy. His findings 
opened the door to novel studies to understand the reasons underlying the predisposition of 
neonates to develop severe thrombocytopenia. 
Associate Professor in the Department of Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, and 
Chair in Pediatric Pulmonology at Children's Hospital Boston, states: 
Presently, [the petitioner] has taken the challenging task to study neonatal thrombocytopenia 
at prestigious Harvard Children's Hospital Boston which is the largest pediatric research 
center and one of the top healthcare providers worldwide. Neonatal Thrombocytopenia is a 
common disease among newborn babies admitted to a neonatal intensive care unit (affecting 
one third of all patients). 
- and discuss the petitioner's work on research projects that 
post-date the filing of this petition. As discussed previously, 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 research projects that commenced 
subsequent to the petition's filing date in this proceeding. 
letter fin-ther states: "[The petitioner's] work has been published in the primary journals 
in the field, including Journal of Biological Chemistry, Molecular Human Reproduction, Proc. 
Amer. Assoc. Cancer Research, Blood and Proc. Amer. Soc. Clin. Oncology as peer-reviewed 
papers." The petitioner's field, like most science, is research-driven, and there would be little point 
in publishing or presenting research that did not add to the general pool of knowledge in the field. 
According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 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 evidence indicates that the petitioner has 
performed admirably on the research projects to which he was assigned and that he is a talented 
researcher with potential, the evidence of record does not establish that he has already made original 
scientific contributions of major significance in his field. For example, the petitioner's evidence 
does not establish that his work has had a substantial national or international impact, nor does it 
show that his field has significantly changed as a result of his work. 
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 
of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comrnr. 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 his field, or has otherwise risen to the level of original contributions of major 
significance, we cannot conclude that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the$eld, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
We withdraw the director's finding that the petitioner meets this regulatory criterion. The petitioner 
submitted evidence of his co-authorship of articles appearing in publications such as Journal of 
Biological Chemistry, Plant Cell Biotechnology and Molecular Biology, and Molecular Human 
Reproduction. The petitioner also submitted evidence showing that he coauthored papers for 
presentation at scientific conferences such as the American Society of Hematology's 45" Annual 
Meeting and the Endocrine Society's 8gth Annual Meeting. We note that authoring scholarly articles 
is inherent to scientific re~earch.~ 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, numerous independent citations for an article authored by the petitioner would provide 
solid evidence that other researchers have been influenced by his work and are familiar with it. On 
the other hand, few or no citations of an article authored by the petitioner may indicate that his work 
has gone largely unnoticed by his field. In this case, the petitioner submitted evidence showing that 
his body of published and presented work has been independently cited less than a dozen times. 
While these citations demonstrate a small degree of interest in hs published articles, they are not 
sufficient to demonstrate that his articles have attracted a level of interest in his field consistent with 
sustained national or international acclaim. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the jield at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 
The petitioner asserts that his work has been displayed at scientific conferences. The petitioner's 
field, however, is not in the arts. The plain language of this regulatory criterion indicates that it is 
intended for visual artists (such as sculptors and painters) rather than for 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. The petitioner's conference presentations are more relevant 
to the "authorship of scholarly articles" criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(vi), a criterion that has 
already been addressed. Nevertheless, in the fields of science and medicine, acclaim is generally not 
- 
3 
 For "Biological Scientists," the Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2008-2009 (accessed at 
http://www.bls.~ov/oco/), states that a "solid record of published research is essential in obtaining a permanent position 
involving basic research." See httv:lldata.bls..govlc.gi-bm/vrint.vVocoiocosO47.htm, accessed on September 15, 2009, copy 
incorporated into the record of proceeding. The handbook also provides information about the nature of employment as a 
postsecondary teacher (professor) and the requirements for such a position. See htt~://data.bls..gov/cni- 
bin/~rint.vl/oco/ocos066.htm, accessed on September 15, 2009, copy incorporated into the record of proceeding. 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 mformation reinforces USCIS's position that 
publication of scholarly articles is not automatically evidence of sustained national or international acclaim; we must consider 
the research community's reaction to those articles. 
established by the mere act of presenting one's work at a conference or symposium along with 
dozens of other participants. Nothing in the record indicates that the presentation of one's work is 
unusual in the petitioner's field or that invitation to present at venues where the petitioner's work 
appeared was a privilege extended to only a few top researchers. Many professional fields regularly 
hold conferences and symposia to present new work, discuss new findings, and to network with 
other professionals. These conferences are promoted and sponsored by professional associations, 
businesses, educational institutions, and government agencies. Participation in such events, 
however, does not elevate the petitioner above almost all others in his field at the national or 
international level. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has peflormed 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 him. In other words, the position must be of such significance that the alien's 
selection to fill the position, in and of itself, is indicative of or consistent with national or international 
acclaim. 
The petitioner submitted letters of recommendation discussing his work at the H. Lee Moffitt Cancer 
and Research Center at the University of South Florida, NM, and Children's Hospital Boston 
(Harvard Medical School). As discussed, the petitioner's work at Children's Hospital Boston 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 perfonned admirably on the 
research projects to which he was assigned, there is no evidence showing that his temporary roles as 
a postdoctoral Visiting Fellow and a postdoctoral research associate were leading or critical for the 
preceding institutions. We note that the petitioner's postdoctoral positions were designed to provide 
specialized research experience and training in his field of endea~or.~ The petitioner's evidence 
does not demonstrate how his subordinate positions differentiated him fi-om the other researchers 
employed at hs institutions, let alone their tenured stafflfaculty and principal investigators. 
 A 
cor&arison of the petitioner's positions with those of his superiors (such as-and- 
and of the other individuals offering letters of support indicates that the very top of his field 
is a level above his present level of achievement. For example, there is no indication that the 
petitioner has served as a principal investigator and initiated his own research projects. The 
documentation submitted by the petitioner does not establish that he was responsible for the preceding 
institutions' success or standing to a degree consistent with the meaning of "leading or critical role" and 
indicative of sustained national or international acclaim. 
"Biological scientists with a Ph.D. often take temporary postdoctoral research positions that provide specialized 
research experience." See ht@://data.bls.~ov/c~i-bin/print.vlloco/ocos7.h accessed on September 15, 2009, copy 
incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
Page 15 
In this case, we concur with the director's finding that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate his 
receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the criteria that 
must be satisfied to establish the national or international acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The conclusion we reach by considering the evidence 
to meet each criterion separately is consistent with a review of the evidence in the aggregate. Even 
in the aggregate, the evidence does not distinguish the petitioner as one of the small percentage who 
has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. $204.5(h)(2). 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself to such an extent 
that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the 
small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's 
achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field at a national or international 
level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Act and the petition may not be approved. 
The AAO maintains plenary power to review each appeal on a de novo basis. 5 U.S.C. 5 557(b) ("On 
appeal from or review of the initial decision, the agency has all the powers which it would have in 
making the initial decision except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule."); see also Janka v. 
US. Dept. of Transp., NTSB, 925 F.2d 1147, 1149 (9th Cir. 1991). The AAO's de novo authority 
has been long recognized by the federal courts. See, e.g., Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d 
Cir. 1989). 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. 4 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will 
be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.