dismissed EB-1A Case: Biotechnology

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
U.S. Department of Itlomeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Of$ce ofAdmirristrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PUBLIC COPY 
SKA SERVICE CENTER Date: JUL 1 6 2009 
LIN 07 050 50034 
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. 9 1 153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. fj 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. 9 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
#.@b6?! FTLL, 
John . Grissom 
v~ctin~ Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
Nebraska Service Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The 
appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien 
of extraordinary ability in the sciences. The director determined that the petitioner had not established 
the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify 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. 
5 204.5(h)(3). 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are 
aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, 
business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or 
international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the 
field through extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization 
Service (INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for 
individuals seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 
60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of 
expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top 
of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). The specific requirements for supporting 
documents to establish that an alien has sustained national or international acclaim and recognition 
in his or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The relevant 
criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that 
he has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on December 6, 2006, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with 
extraordinary ability as a biotechnology researcher. At the time of filing, the petitioner was working 
as an Assistant Professor at the Institute of Human Virology, University of Maryland Biotechnology 
Institute. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally 
recognized award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, 
at least three of which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to 
qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. A petitioner, however, cannot establish eligibility for this 
classification merely by submitting evidence that simply relates to at least three criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
tj 204.5(h)(3). In determining whether the petitioner meets a specific criterion, the evidence itself 
must be evaluated in terms of whether it is indicative of or consistent with sustained national or 
international acclaim. A lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory 
definition of "extraordinary ability" as "a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of 
that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. 
tj 204.5(h)(2). The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria under 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3).' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted a November 14, 2006 letter from , Professor and Director, 
Institute of Human Virology, University of Maryland, stating: 
This letter is to certify that [the petitioner] joined my Laboratory, the Laboratory of Tumor 
Cell Biology at the National Cancer Institute, NIH, on 0912011992. He worked from 0911992 
to 0911994 as a recipient of a fellowship for the fight against AIDS, awarded by the Italian 
Ministry of Health. This fellowship is an Italian National award that has been given to a 
limited number of scientists for excellence in their field. 
In resuonse to the director's reauest for evidence. the uetitioner submitted a March 4. 2008 letter 
from - ~;11 Professor of ~olecuiar Biology, Faculty of ~edicind, University 
of Verona, stating that the petitioner worked in his laboratory at the Institute of Molecular Genetics 
of the Council of National Research in Italy from 1986 to 1992. 
 further states: 
In 1992 [the petitioner] won a fellowship from the Italian National Institute of Health . . . 
funded by the Italian Ministry of Health. . . . [The petitioner] was awarded his fellowship 
after a very selective process conducted nationwide to allow 50 prominent young Italian 
scientists to continue their scientific research projects in prestigious national laboratories. 
After two selection steps, which evaluated both his achievements and his scientific project, 
[the petitioner] was awarded one of the 50 fellowship [sic]. 
I 
 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
The record does not include evidence from the Italian National Institute of Health or the Italian 
Ministry of Health documenting or verifying the petitioner's fellowship. Rather than submitting 
primary evidence of the fellowship from the presenting governmental institution, the petitioner instead 
submitted a letter from his superiors asserting that he received the fellowship. Going on record 
without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of 
proof in these proceedings. Matter of SofJlci, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of 
Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). A petition must be filed with 
any initial evidence required by the regulation. 8 C.F.R. $ 103.2(b)(l). The nonexistence or other 
unavailability of primary evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(2)(i). 
In this instance, the petitioner has not overcome the absence of primary and secondary evidence 
demonstrating that he received this fellowship from the Italian National Institute of Health and the 
Italian Ministry of Health. 
Nevertheless, the petitioner's fellowship represents financial support for his advanced research 
training rather than a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the 
field of endeavor. We cannot ignore - comment that the petitioner's fellowship was 
intended for "young Italian scientists." Experienced research scientists do not compete for 
fellowships and competitive postdoctoral appointments. Thus, they cannot establish that a recipient 
"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). Receipt of such a fellowship offers no meaningful comparison between the petitioner 
and experienced researchers in the field who had long since completed their postdoctoral training. 
The petitioner's response to the director's request for evidence included a certificate issued to him 
by the Institute of Human Virology stating that he received a "Special Performance Bonus" in 
September 2001. This performance bonus from the petitioner's immediate employer reflects 
institutional recognition rather than the national or international recognition required by this 
criterion. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits an October 2, 2006 letter from the American Cancer Society (ACS) 
announcing that of the Institute of Human Virology received a Research Scholar Grant 
from the ACS as Principal Investigator, a letter from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) indicating that 
was the Principal Investigator for a grant from the NCI, and a "Collaborative Research 
Agreement" between the University of Maryland Biotechnology Institute and the "Foundazione Casse 
- ' (FCRP) indicating that 
 was the Principal Investigator for a grant 
from the FCRP. We cannot ignore that the petitioner was a co-investigator for the preceding grants 
rather than the principal investigator. Further, we note that research grants simply fund a scientist's 
work. A substantial amount of scientific research is funded by research grants from a variety of 
public and private sources. Every successhl scientist engaged in research, of which there are hundreds 
of thousands, receives funding from somewhere. Obviously the past achievements of the principal 
investigator are a factor in grant proposals. The funding institution has to be assured that the 
investigator is capable of performing the proposed research. Nevertheless, a research grant is 
principally designed to fund future research, and not to honor or recognize past achievement. Thus, we 
cannot conclude that having one's work funded through research grants constitutes receipt of 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classzfication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, a petitioner must 
show that the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for admission to 
membership. Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a given field, minimum 
education or experience, standardized test scores, grade point average, recommendations by 
colleagues or current members, or payment of dues, do not satisfy this criterion as such requirements 
do not constitute outstanding achievements. Further, the overall prestige of a given association is 
not determinative; the issue here is membership requirements rather than the association's overall 
reputation. 
The petitioner submitted a certification indicating that he is a registered member of the Italian 
Professional Board of Biologists. The record, however, does not include evidence (such as 
membership bylaws or official admission requirements) showing the admission requirements for this 
organization. 
The petitioner also submitted a letter from the Chair of the University of Maryland Biotechnology 
Institute (UMBI) Faculty-Staff Senate stating that the petitioner is a senator in that body. In 
response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a document entitled "UMBI 
Policies and Procedures" stating that "full-time faculty and staff members with UMBI appointments 
are eligible to participate in Senate elections and to be elected to the Senate." The document further 
states: "The Representative Senators will consist of two faculty members, one of whom should hold 
a tenured or tenure-track appointment, and one staff member from each of the UMBI Research 
Centers, and two staff members from UMBI Central Administration." There is no evidence showing 
that membership in the UMBI Faculty-Staff Senate requires outstanding achievements rather than 
simply being a faculty or staff member employed by UMBI. 
In this case, there is no evidence showing that the preceding organizations 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 thejield for which classiJication 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 
Page 6 
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 submitted citation indices from Web of Science and IS1 Web of Knowledge 
demonstrating scores of cites to his published articles. 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. 
4 204.5(h)(3)(vi) and will be addressed there. 
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 allied field of speczfication for which classzfication is 
sought. 
The petitioner submitted letters from editors and representatives of Proceedings of the National 
Academy of Sciences, The Journal of Immunology, Journal of Cellular Physiology, The Journal of 
Infectious Diseases, Journal of Leukocyte Biology, Blood, Cellular and Molecular Biology, 
Antioxidants & Redox Signaling, Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, The American 
Journal of Pathology, and The British Journal of Haematology stating that he reviewed manuscripts 
for their journals. The documentation submitted by the petitioner indicates that that he has reviewed a 
large number of articles for a substantial number of distinguished journals. Accordingly, the 
petitioner has established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientzfic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major signzficance in the field. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits documentation relating to two provisional patent applications 
listing him as an inventor. There is no evidence showing that the petitioner has been granted a 
patent for these inventions. Even if the petitioner were to submit such evidence, the grant of a patent 
demonstrates only that an invention is original. This office has previously stated that a patent is not 
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. 
necessarily evidence of a track record of success with some degree of influence over the field as a 
whole. See Matter of New York State Dep 't. of Transp., 22 I&N Dec. 2 15, 221 n. 7, (Cornrnr. 1998). 
Rather, the significance of the innovation must be determined on a case-by-case basis. Id. 
 The 
petitioner's provisional patent applications from 1996 and 2001 are assigned to the National Institutes 
of Health and the University of Maryland Biotechnology Institute. The petitioner's superiors at these 
institutions do not indicate that they have successfully licensed or marketed his innovations. Thus, the 
impact of the petitioner's inventions is not documented in the record. There is no evidence 
demonstrating that the scientific processes developed by the petitioner several years ago constitute 
original scientific contributions of major significance in his field. For example, in discussing his 
patent applications, the petitioner states that his innovations "could potentially . . . be developed for 
the health benefit of the Nation at large" rather than addressing how his inventions have already had 
a significant impact in the field. 
Aside from evidence of his provisional patent applications from 1996 and 2001, the petitioner 
submitted several letters of recommendation in support of the petition. 
I have known [the petitioner] since 1992, when he joined my Laboratory, the Laboratory of 
Tumor Cell Biology part of the National Cancer Institute at the National Institute of Health in 
Bethesda, Maryland. [The petitioner] then joined me at the Institute of Human Virology in 
1995 and since then his productivity has constantly improved. As demonstrated by his C.V., 
[the petitioner] is an outstanding scientist with extraordinary ability and extensive expertise 
in molecular and cell biology and he has the capability of interacting productively with most 
members of the Institute as well as maintaining international collaborations. To the regards, 
he is among the founders (with myself and other colleagues) of a Foundation (Research & 
Progress Foundation) established in Rome, Italy in February 2004 to foster collaborations 
between Italian and American scientists. He is currently coordinating the work efforts of one 
research associate and one technician in his Laboratory at the IHV. His main areas of 
research are: i) IFN-mediated anti-proliferative effects; ii) HIV pathogenesis; HHV-6 and 
Multiple Sclerosis. 
Major accomplishments of [the petitioner] : 
His work demonstrated for the first time that IFN-a (a molecule used in anticancer 
therapy) affects one of the most important pathway in cell proliferation. This could 
lead to new treatments for cancer; 
His group developed a serological assay to discriminate between two viral strains 
(HHV-6A and B). This assay could prove very important to study the link between 
HHV-6 and Multiple Sclerosis; 
He published several manuscripts where he clearly demonstrated how an HIV protein 
negatively affects immune system hnction. This research has increased our 
understanding of HIV disease process. It has also resulted in new insights in HIV 
pathogenesis; 
He is also currently involved in the study of a protein important in cancer 
development and control. 
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 published research, in order to be accepted for 
graduation, publication 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. 
Associate Director of the Division of Basic Science, Institute of Human Virology, 
states: 
I have known [the petitioner] since he joined the Laboratory of Tumor Cell Biology at the 
National Cancer Institute at the National Institute of Health in Bethesda, Maryland in 1992. I 
have had many opportunities to interact with [the petitioner], both professionally and 
personally and in my opinion he is one of the most committed scientists I have had the 
pleasure of knowing, with a broad range of technical skills, and he is highly able to critically 
assess his own work and that of others in the field. He currently heads a Laboratory at the 
Institute of Human virology, and we collaborate on several lines of research. In particular, 
we have conducted studies on HIV-induced immunopathogenesis and on the anti-tumor 
effects of Interferon-alpha. These studies are important because they can lead to new clinical 
treatments. His presence here is of considerable value to the Institute. 
Professor and Director, Laboratory of General Pathology and Experimental 
Oncology, Universita' dell'hsurbria, Italy, states: 
I have known [the petitioner] since 2005, when we met at a scientific meeting the Foundation 
he is President of, Fondazione Ricerca e Progresso, organized in Catania, Italy. I have had 
many interactions with [the petitioner] since then, both professionally and personally and in 
my opinion he has a very broad range of technical skills, and he is highly able to critically 
assess his own work and that of others in the field. He is currently head of a Laboratory at 
the Institute of Human virology, and we collaborate in studying the anti-tumor effects of 
Interferon-alpha. These studies are very important for their clinical implications, since they 
can help developing new treatments. 
former Chairman of the Laboratoire de Physiologie Cellulaire, UniversitC et 
Marie Curie, and current Chairman of the Sciences and Research Department of Neovacs S.A., 
states: 
I have known [the petitioner] since 1992, when he joined the Laboratory of Tumor Cell 
Biology at the National Cancer Institute at the National Institute of health in Bethesda, 
Maryland in 1992. I have interacted with [the petitioner], both professionally and personally 
and in my opinion he is a very dedicated scientist. He has a very broad range of technical 
skills, and he is highly able to critically assess his own work and that of others in the field. 
He currently heads a Laboratory at the Institute of Human Virology, and we collaborate in 
studying mechanisms of HIV-induced immunopathogenesis and anti-tumor effects of 
Interferon-alpha. These studies are very important for their clinical implications, since they 
can help developing new treatments. 
The preceding letters from 
 and are similar in content and contain 
identical language. It is not clear who is the actual author of the duplicative text in their letters of 
- - 
support, but it is highly improbable that these three individuals independently formulated the exact 
same wording. While it is acknowledged that these individuals have lent their support to this 
petition, it appears that two of them did not independently prepare significant portions of their 
letters. As such, we find their duplicative statements to be of limited probative value. 
~irector, Division of AIDS, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of 
Allergy and Infectious Diseases, states: 
I have known [the petitioner] since 1995, when he joined the Institute of Human Virology of 
Medical Biotechnology Center (MBC) of the University of Maryland. At that time, I was the 
Director of the MBC and had numerous occasions to interact with him. He was among one 
of the most dedicated and highly skilled scientists I have had the pleasure to work with. In 
fact, [the petitioner] has published several scientific papers of impact in the field of HIV- 
related immunopathogenesis, studylng the effect of a viral protein on the human immune 
system. In addition, he has also published papers relevant to the field of tumor cell biology, 
demonstrating how IFN-alpha can modulate a cellular pathway important for cell 
proliferation. His work can potentially lay the foundation for new clinical treatments. 
Indeed, there is no doubt that [the petitioner] processes extraordinary scientific ability which 
will likely have a significant impact on the field of medical research, and ultimately human 
health. 
states that the petitioner has published several papers focusing on HIV-related immuno- 
pathogenesis and tumor cell biology. On appeal, the petitioner argues that his publication record in 
distinguished scientific journals is sufficient to meet this regulatory criterion. The petitioner's 
research publications are far more relevant to the "authorship of scholarly articles" criterion at 
8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3)(vi). Here it should be emphasized that the regulatory criteria are separate and 
distinct from one another. Because separate criteria exist for authorship of scholarly articles and 
original contributions of major significance, USCIS clearly does not view the two as being 
interchangeable. If evidence sufficient to meet one criterion mandated a finding that an alien met 
another criterion, the requirement that an alien meet at least three criteria would be meaningless. We 
will fully address the petitioner's published work under the next criterion. 
urther states that the petitioner's "work can potentially lay the foundation for new 
clinical treatments" and "will likely have a significant impact on the field of medical research." 
With regard to the witnesses of record, many of them they discuss what may, might, or could one 
day result from the petitioner's work, rather than how his past research achievements already qualify 
as original contributions of major significance in the field. For example, states that the 
petitioner's research "could lead to new treatments for cancer" and "could prove very important to 
study the link between HHV-6 and Multiple Sclerosis." - and all state 
that the petitioner's studies "can help [in] developing new treatments." A petitioner cannot file a 
petition under this classification based on the expectation of future eligibility. Matter of Katigbak, 
14 I&N Dec. 45,49 (Regl. Commr. 1971). 
The preceding letters do not include a substantive explanation of specific examples in which the 
petitioner's research contributions were of major significance in his field. According to the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not only original but of 
major significance. We must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, 
thus, that it has some meaning. While the petitioner has earned the admiration of his superiors and 
collaborators, the record lacks evidence showing that his work constitutes original contributions of 
major significance in his field consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. For 
example, the letters of support do not indicate the extent to which the petitioner's specific findings 
have impacted others in his field nationally or internationally beyond his immediate circle of 
colleagues, nor do they show that the field in general has significantly changed as a result of his 
work. 
In this case, the letters of support limited to the petitioner's superiors and research collaborators are 
not sufficient to meet this criterion. The opinions of experts in the field, while not without weight, 
cannot form the cornerstone of a successful extraordinary ability claim. USCIS may, in its 
discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron 
International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Commr. 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for 
making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The 
submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; 
USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. 
See id. at 795-796. Thus, the content of the experts' statements and how they became aware of the 
petitioner's reputation are important considerations. Even when written by independent experts, 
letters solicited by an alien in support of an immigration petition are of less weight than preexisting, 
independent evidence of original contributions of major significance that one would expect of an 
engineering 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 contributions of major significance, we cannot conclude 
that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the jeld, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of his co-authorship of numerous articles appearing in 
publications such as Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Blood, Journal of 
Immunology, Circulation, Lancet, and Nature Medicine. The petitioner also submitted evidence of 
numerous articles that cite to his work. Accordingly, the petitioner has established that he meets this 
criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
At issue for this criterion are the position the petitioner was selected to fill and the reputation of the 
entity that selected 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. 
On appeal, the petitioner argues that he performed in a critical role as a "peer reviewer for top scientific 
journals" and in a leading role for the Institute of Human Virology and the "Research and Progress 
Foundation in Italy." With regard to the petitioner's occasional service as an "ad hoc" reviewer for 
Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, The American Journal of Pathology, and The 
British Journal of Haematology, there is no evidence showing that being among the numerous 
scientists who were requested to perform this service was tantamount to a leading or critical role for 
those journals. Nevertheless, the petitioner's service as a manuscript reviewer has already been 
addressed under the "judge of the work of others" criterion at 8 C.F.R. $204.5(h)(3)(iv). As 
previously noted, because separate criteria exist for judging the work of others and performing in a 
leading or critical role, USCIS clearly does not view the two as being interchangeable. 
In regard to the petitioner's role as President of the Research and Progress Foundation in Italy, the 
petitioner submits a June 22, 2005 letter from to the Minister of Health and Welfare of 
India discussing future plans for building an Institute of Human Virology in Madras, India. Dr. 
letter identifies the petitioner as the President of the Research and Progress Foundation, but 
the letter does not provide substantive information regarding the duties and responsibilities of the 
petitioner's position. Further, there is no evidence showing that the Research and Progress 
Foundation has a distinguished reputation. 
With regard to the petitioner's role as an Assistant Professor at the Institute of Human Virology, the 
petitioner submitted a November 14, 2006 letter from the Chief of Operating Office, Institute of 
Human Virology, stating: 
This letter is to certify that [the petitioner] participates as a member of the Senior Staff of the 
Institute of Human Virology. He also coordinates the work of his laboratory and collaborates 
with several internationally recognized scientists. For all this [sic] reasons he plays a critical 
role within the Institute of Human Virology, an organization with distinguished part of the 
University System of Maryland. 
There is no supporting evidence showing that the Institute of Human Virology has a distinguished 
reputation. With regard to the petitioner's role as an Assistant Professor, there is no evidence 
showing that his role was leading or critical for the Institute or the University System of Maryland. 
The petitioner's evidence does not demonstrate how his role differentiated him from the other 
researchers in the Senior Staff, let alone its top management. For example, the petitioner has not 
submitted an organizational chart for the Institute of Human Virology or the University System of 
Maryland showing where his position falls within the organizational hierarchy. The documentation 
submitted by the petitioner does not establish that he was responsible for the success or standing of the 
Institute of Human Virology or the University System of Maryland to a degree consistent with the 
meaning of "leading or critical role" and indicative of sustained national or international acclaim. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
In this case, we find that the petitioner meets only two regulatory criteria, three of which are required 
to establish eligibility. 
 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3). 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. fj 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. 5 204.5(h)(2). 
On appeal, the petitioner additionally argues that prior approvals of 0-1 nonimmigrant visa petitions 
filed on his behalf serve "as proof of his extraordinary ability in the sciences." While USCIS has 
approved at least two 0-1 nonimmigrant visa petitions filed on behalf of the petitioner by the 
University of Maryland Biotechnology Institute, these prior approvals do not preclude USCIS from 
denying an immigrant visa petition based on a different, if similarly phrased standard. It must be noted 
that many 1-140 immigrant petitions are denied after USCIS approves prior nonimmigrant petitions. 
See, e.g., Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2003); IKEA US v. US Dept. of 
Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Brothers Co. Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1 103 
(E.D.N.Y. 1989). Because USCIS spends less time reviewing 1-129 nonimmigrant petitions than I- 
140 immigrant petitions, some nonimmigrant petitions are simply approved in error. Q Data 
Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d at 29-30; see also Texas A&M Univ. v. Upchurch, 99 Fed. 
Appx. 556, 2004 WL 1240482 (5th Cir. 2004) (finding that prior approvals do not preclude USCIS 
from denying an extension of the original visa based on a reassessment of the alien's qualifications). 
The AAO is not required to approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not been 
demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See, e.g., Matter of 
Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593,597 (Comm. 1988). It would be absurd to suggest 
that USCIS or any agency must treat acknowledged errors as binding precedent. Sussex Engg. Ltd. v. 
Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1988). 
Furthermore, the AAO's authority over the service centers is comparable to the relationship between a 
court of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director has approved a nonirnmigrant 
petition on behalf of the alien, the AAO would not be bound to follow the contradictory decision of a 
service center. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 2000 WL 282785 (E.D. La.), affd, 248 F.3d 
1139 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 51 (2001). 
, 
 Page 13 
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 burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will 
be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.