dismissed EB-1A Case: Cancer Research

(b)(6)
DATE: AUG 0 6 2014 
INRE: Petitioner : 
Beneficiary: 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrativ e Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachus etts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington , DC 20529 -2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
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. § 1153(b )(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http:/ /www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
)x:<k r-
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www. uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition on January 30, 2014. The petitioner, who is 
also the beneficiary, appealed the decision to 
the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on March 3, 2014. The appeal will be dismissed. 
According to the petition, filed on October 22, 2013, the petitioner seeks classification as an alien of 
extraordinary ability in the sciences, as a cancer research scientist, pursuant to section 203(b )(1 )(A) 
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A). The director 
determined that the petitioner has not established the sustained national or international acclaim 
necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the 
statute that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim" and 
present "extensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section§ 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the 
Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that an 
alien, as initial evidence, can present evidence of a one-time achievement of a major, internationally 
recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten categories of 
specific objective evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The petitioner must submit qualifying 
evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory categories of evidence to establish the basic 
eligibility requirements. 
On aooeaL the oetitioner files additional supporting documents, including online printouts entitled 
" ' and information about tax treaties from the U.S. Internal Revenue Service 
(IRS) website. The petitioner asserts that she meets the criteria under the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(i), (ii), (v), (vi), (vii), (viii} and (ix). For the reasons discussed below, the petitioner has 
not established her eligibility for the exclusive classification sought. Specifically, the petitioner has 
not submitted qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory criteria set forth in the 
regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). As such, the petitioner has not demonstrated that she is 
one of the small percentage who are at the very top in the field of endeavor, and that she has 
sustained national or international acclaim. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(2), (3). Accordingly, we will 
dismiss the petitioner ' s appeal. 
I. THE LAW 
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 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
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. 
United States 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 H.R. 723 
101st Cong., 2d Sess. 59 (1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). The term 
"extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in that small percentage who have risen to the 
very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be 
established either through initial evidence of a one-time achievement, that is a major, internationally 
recognized award, or through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten 
categories of evidence listed under the regulations at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the denial of a petition filed under 
this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although the court upheld 
the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with our evaluation of the evidence 
submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion.1 With respect to the criteria at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised legitimate 
concerns about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, those concerns 
should have been raised in a subsequent "final merits determination." Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1121-
22. 
The court stated that our evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. Instead 
of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the proper 
procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the petitioner 
failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed to satisfy 
the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." Kazarian, 596 F.3d 
at 1122 (citing to 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then 
considered in the context of a final merits determination. In this case, the petitioner has not satisfied 
the antecedent regulatory requirement of presenting at least three types of evidence under the 
1 
Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary requirements 
beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), and has not demonstrated that she is one of the small 
percentage who are at the very top in the field of endeavor, or has achieved sustained national or 
international acclaim. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h) (2), (3). 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 2 
Under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), the petitioner, as initial evidence, may present 
evidence of a one-time achievement that is a major, internationally recognized award. In this case, 
the petitioner has not asserted or shown through her evidence that she is the recipient of a major, 
internationally recognized award at a level similar to that of the Nobel Prize. As such, as initial 
evidence, the petitioner must present at least three of the ten types of evidence under the regulations 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) to meet the basic eligibility requirements. 
Documentation of the alien 's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The director concluded that the petitioner did not meet this criterion. On aooeal. the petitioner 
asserts that she meets this criterion because she has received (1) a 
I fellowship, and (2) worked on research the 
funded through a grant. The petitioner asserts that fellowships are 
awarded to "highly qualified young graduates and/or post-doctoral fellows or equivalent who wish to 
broaden or acquire new experience in ontological research in a cancer-focused laboratory abroad." 
The petitioner further asserts that fellowships are "given only to applicants who have shown 
excellence in their field of endeavor. Not everyone can get it." To show that the Society of 
grant meets this criterion, the petitioner asserts that the" [sic] is world's 
oldest and largest private cancer center" and that the "has earned the distinction as one of 
the premier cancer centers worldwide ." 
ThP neJitioner has not shown that she meets this criterion. First, the "ellowship and Society of 
grant 
constitute research funding opportunities. Research funding, through grants or 
fellowships, serve to fund a scientist's work. Every successful scientist who engages in research, of 
which there are hundreds of thousands, receives funding from somewhere. Indeed, the petitioner 
states on appeal that the' has given out more than €657 million ($890 million U.S. Dollars) for 
research projects conducted at institutions, universities, and hospitals throughout Italy and it has 
given out more than €33 million (over 444 million U.S. Dollars) for study grants to young 
researchers .... " The past achievements of the principal investigator or fellowship recipient are a 
factor in grant proposals; the funding institution has to be assured that the fellowship or grant 
recipient is capable of performing the proposed research. Nevertheless, a research grant or funding 
2 
The petitioner does not claim that she meets the regulatory categories of evidence not discussed in this decision . 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
fellowship is principally designed to fund future research, and not to honor or recognize excellence. 
Thus, the fellowship and grant are not prizes or awards for excellence. 
Second, achievements in academic study and qualifying for training positions are not achievements 
in a field of endeavor, but constitute training for a future field of endeavor. As such, pre-doctoral 
and postdoctoral fellowships cannot be considered nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the petitioner's field of endeavor. .While they may be prestigious, 
fellowships are not nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards because only other 
recent graduates or current students -not recognized experts in the field - compete for such funding. 
Indeed, according to the petitioner, the application of the :ellowship is not open to all scientists 
in the cancer research field. Rather, it is only open to "young graduates and/or postdoctoral fellows 
or equivalent." The Call for Proposals 2013" similarly shows that only individuals who have 
obtained their degrees after December 31, 2006, or after December 31, 2004 for clinicians. mav 
apply for the fellowship. According to a January 15, 2014letter from Ph.D. 
Member of I _ , the '1s 
awarded to promising scientists .... " According to the July 19, 2013 letter from the l 
"provide[s] research fellowship to young Italian scientists." Receiving funding for one's research 
and academic training does not constitute receipt of a nationally or internationally recognized prize 
or award for excellence in the field of endeavor. Such support funding is presented not to 
established researchers with active professional careers, but rather, to recent graduates or current 
students seeking to further their research, training, and experience. 
In addition, although the petitioner has submitted some evidence relating to the history and 
reputation, the petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence relating to the reputation or prestige 
of the fellowships the offers or evidence showing that the fellowships could be considered 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence. As such, the petitioner's 
fellowship does not meet this criterion. 
Third, the evidence in the record is insufficient to show that the petitioner has received a grant from 
the Society of or that the grant constitutes a nationally or internationally recognized prize 
or award for excellence. The petitioner has not submitted any evidence from showing that 
she is an awardee of the grant. Indeed, according to Dr. . August 5, 2013 letter, it was "Dr. 
Genitourinary Oncology Service, Department of Medicine, who 
recently received a grant from the to evaluate DNA repair in tumors from germ cell 
tumor patients enrolled onto a randomized clinical trial." In addition, a document entitled "The 
Soc.iP.tv of Budget Report" lists Dr. as the study's principal investigator and 
, M.D., as the co-principal investigator. The document lists the petitioner as a 
research fellow. The petitioner has not shown that the Society of awarded the research 
grant to her. Rather, it appears that the Society of awarded the research grant to Dr. 
and the grant funds a study in which the petitioner is hired as a research fellow. Moreover, 
although the petitioner has provided online printouts relating to the Society of she has not 
provided sufficient evidence relating to the selection criteria and process of the research grant, such 
that it could be considered a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence. 
(b)(6)
Page 6 
Indeed, the Society of 
offers. As such, the Society of 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
online printouts make no mention of grants that the organization 
grant does not meet this criterion. 
Finally, the record includes documents relating to the petitioner's academic degrees and her 
involvement with other research projects. On appeal, the petitioner has not specifically asserted that 
these accomplishments meet the criterion. As such, the petitioner has abandoned this issue, as she 
did not timely raise it on appeal. Sepulveda v. United States Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 
(11th Cir. 2005); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *1, 9 (E.D.N.Y. 
Sept. 30, 2011) (the United States District Court found the plaintiffs claims to be abandoned as he 
failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO). 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not presented documentation of her receipt of lesser nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. The petitioner 
has not met this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
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 recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The director concluded that the petitioner did not meet this criterion. On aQPeal, the petitioner 
asserts that she meets this criterion, because she is (1) a member of the Scientific 
; (2) an associate member of the 
(3) a member of the , ; and ( 4) a member of the 
The petitioner's supporting evidence. including a September 27, 2013 letter from . 
Ph.D., Executive Director of does not establish that the petitioner's full membership in 
constitutes a membership in a qualifying association. The materials about the 
petitioner submitted reveal that full membership "is conferred upon those who have demonstrated 
noteworthy achievements in research." According to its bylaws, these achievements must be 
evidenced by "publications, patents, written reports or a thesis or dissertation." A noteworthy 
achievement is not necessarily an outstanding achievement. In fact, the record reveals that 
does not take a particularly strict view of noteworthy achievements. Specifically, as Dr. 
indicates in his letter, one can show "noteworthy achievements in research" by showing "primary 
authorship of two papers[, which include] refereed journal articles, patents or refereed 
monographs[]." Primary authorship of one or two papers is notan outstanding achievement. Thus, 
the petitioner's membership in Sigma Xi cannot serve to meet this criterion. While the petitioner 
submitted evidence that 200 of the nearly 60,000 members of are Nobel Laureates, the fact 
that a small percentage of members have gone on to receive this major award does not suggest or 
imply that requires outstanding achievements of its members. 
Even if the petitioner had demonstrated that her membership in is qualifying, and she has 
not, she has not shown that she's a member of a second qualifying association. The plain language 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
of the criterion requires evidence of membership in associatiOns, in the plural, which require 
outstanding achievements of their members. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). This is consistent with 
the statutory requirement for extensive documentation. See section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act. The 
record lacks evidence that the petitioner's remaining memberships are in qualifying associations. 
The record shows that the petitioner is an associate member of the an international 
professional orQ:anizatio of scientists working in cancer research. According to a July 18, 2013 
letter from , Director of Membership, an associate membership applicant 
"must be nominated by one current Active, Emeritus, or Honorary members [sic] in good standing in 
the who can attest to the candidate's achievements and affirm that his or her research 
adheres to accepted ethical standards." The petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence showing 
that "achievement" as stated in Ms. ; letter constitutes "outstanding achievements ." In 
addition, neither Ms. letter nor any other evidence in the record indicates that the 
requires that recognized national or international experts judge its associate members ' "outstanding 
achievements" as required by the plain language of the criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The petitioner has submitted documents relating to the and her membership in the 
According to a July 16, 2013 letter from Senior Membership Coordinator, the 
petitioner "received a one year sponsored membership from 
starting April 1, 2012 and she continues her membership as a self-paid student member 
today." Although the petitioner has presented an online printout about the awards that the 
has received, she has not provided sufficient evidence relating to how one becomes a member of the 
Moreover, the petitioner has not presented evidence showing that the requires 
"outstanding achievements" from its members or that recognized national or international experts 
judge the "outstanding achievements," Rather, Ms. s letter indicates that the "is open 
to all scientists, physicians, and engineers, and to all other individuals interested in science, 
mathematics, and engineering, in the roles of science and technology in society, and in the objectives 
of the Academy." 
The petitioner has submitted a July 18, 2013 letter from Office of Postdoctoral Mfairs, 
stating that the petitioner is the event coordinator of The letter does not state 
that the petitioner is a member of nor does it provide information on how one becomes a 
member of Significantly, neither the letter nor any other evidence in the record 
establishes that requires from its members "outstanding achievements" as judged by 
recognized international or national experts, as required by the plain language of the criterion. See 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not presented documentation of her membership in associations in 
the field for which classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their 
members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. The 
petitioner has not met this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 8 C.P.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The director concluded that the petitioner did not meet this criterion. On appeal, the petitioner 
asserts that she meets this criterion, based on (1) her scientific publications in scientific journals; 
(2) her presentations at conferences; and (3) reference letters from scientists who are familiar with 
her work. 
The petitioner has not shown that she meets this criterion. First, publication of the petitioner's 
articles is insufficient to show she meets this criterion. The regulations contain a separate criterion 
regarding the authorship of published articles. See 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). Evidence directly 
relating to one criterion is not presumptive evidence that the petitioner meets a second criterion. 
Such a presumption would negate the statutory requirement for extensive evidence and the 
regulatory requirement that the petitioner meets at least three criteria. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of 
the Act; see also 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Accordingly, the regulation views contributions as a 
separate evidentiary requirement from scholarly articles. Publication of articles is not sufficient 
evidence under this criterion absent evidence that the articles are of "major significance." Kazarian 
v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009), aff'd in part, 596 F.3d at 1115. In 2010, the 
Kazarian court reaffirmed its holding that our adverse finding under this criterion was not an abuse 
of discretion. 596 F.3d at 1122. Typically, in considering whether a published article is a 
contribution of major significance, a relevant factor is the impact an article has after publication. In 
this case, the petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence showing that the impact of any of her 
articles has risen to such a level that the article constitutes a contribution of major significance in the 
field. For example, while not the only means of demonstrating her impact, she has not demonstrated 
that her articles have garnered frequent and widespread citation. 
Second, the prestige of a journal does not indicate that that all articles the journal published 
constitute contributions of major significance in the field. According to Business 
Development Director of the which publishes _ _ 
"is a highly respected and highly cited biomedical journal." It ha<:: ::~n 
acce tance rate of less than 10 percent and a journal impact factor of 13.214. According to 
Ph.D., Chief Editor of the journal has a final 
acceptance rate of 10 percent and Its :LUll. Impact ractor was 11.~. According to Dr. 
Editorial Manager of the journal's impact factor is 8.278 
and it is ranked 27th out of 290 journals in the biochemistry and molecular biology lSI category. 
The fact that the petitioner's articles were published in these journals does not establish that her 
articles constitute 
contributions of major significance in the field, absent evidence of the articles' 
impact in the field once disseminated in the field. 
Third, although the documents in the record show that one of the petitioner's abstracts was accepted 
for poster presentation at the Third 
and that the petitioner participated in a poster session at the a conference in 
Rhode Island, the petitioner has not demonstrated the impact of these presentations upon 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
dissemination in the field. At best, the evidence shows that the petitioner's research, as presented in 
conferences, has some relevance in the field, with the conference organizers determining that her 
work has sufficient promise to warrant inclusion among the other poster presentations. In addition, 
although the petitioner claims to have been a poster speaker at the _ conference, the 
evidence in the record shows that she was not one of the scientists chosen to make an oral 
presentation at the conference. 
Fourth, the petitioner has submitted reference letters from scientists who are familiar with her 
research. While these letters establish that the petitioner's research has value, any research must be 
original and likely to present some benefit if it is to receive funding and attention from the scientific 
community. In order for a university, publisher, or grantor to accept any research for graduation, 
publication, or funding, the research must offer new and useful information to the pool of general 
knowledge. The evidence in the record demonstrates that the petitioner has performed original 
research that added to the general pool of knowledge. For example, Dr. states that the 
petitioner's research "has led to a better understanding of thP- 1milP-rlim:r mP-chanism of cisplatin 
sensitivity and resistance among germ cell tumors (G(;Tt" Ph.D., Associate 
Professor of Cell and Molecular Biology states that the petitioner's 
research has "greatly improved our understanding of the molecular mechanisms of cisplatin 
sensitivity and resistance, and created new opportunities for the successful treatment of resistant 
tumors." Dr. states that the petitioner's studies "have provided insight discovery on TGCT 
[testicular germ cell tumors]." According to l , Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Human 
Anatomy, Department of Biomedicine and Prevention, , the 
petitioner's work "represents a very important step for the identification of an innovative and truly 
effective therapy that American men at first, and patents trough r sic 1 the world might have available 
in the near future." According to ~ _ Ph.D., Chair at the 
Department of Medicine and Cell Biology Program, the petitioner's studies relating to the treatment 
of cultured tumor cells "are of considerable significance in understanding cisplatin 
sensitivity/resistance and designing treatment protocols for cisplatin resistant patients." The 
evidence shows that the petitioner's research has added to the general pool of knowledge. Not every 
researcher who performs original research that adds to the general pool of knowledge has inherently 
made a contribution of major significance to the field as a whole. In this case, the petitioner has not 
submitted sufficient evidence showing contributions of major significance. 
Instead, the reference letters infer that the petitioner's research has tl>., nAtPnt;<tl of becoming 
contributions of major significance in the field. For example, Dr. notes that the 
"significance of [a] study [in which the petitioner is involved] holds tremendous potential to impact 
upon the outcome of patients with GCT as well as those with other malignancies treated with 
cisplatin (head and neck, bladder, ovarian, lung, esophageal, and gastric)." Ph.D., 
Associate Professor in Genetics and the Associate Cancer Center, Director for Translational 
Outreach at the. , notes that a "novel therapeutic approach [in which the petitioner 
assisted in developing] has [the] potential to impact a significant patient populations affected by 
myeloid leukemia and solid tumors." Dr. further notes that the petitioner "will have a material 
impact on [the] efforts to successfully commercialize the resulting new drugs" and that her 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
"contributions will promote both scientific advancement and economic development." Dr. 
states in his June 19, 2013 letter that the petitioner "is highly likely to make important contributions 
to our understanding of the cellular DNA damage response and cancer susceptibility in general." 
According to a July 22, 2013 letter from , M.D., Department of Medicine Chair, 
Chair in Clinical Oncology, the petitioner's research work on TGCT "is of 
substantial potential value in identifying new therapies for these patients and to base such therapies 
on the underlying biological determinants of malignant cell growth." Associate 
Professor of Pharmacology, Department of System Medicine, _ --' 
states that the petitioner's "experience and future work activity have the potential to help cancer 
patients." t, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Department of Biology, 
states that the petitioner's "research may positively impact American cancer patients." 
These reference letters are insufficient to show that the petitioner has already made qualifying 
contributions. Rather, they opine that the petitioner's research might in the future impact the field. 
The Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board) has held that testimony should not be disregarded 
simply because it is "self-serving." See, e.g., Matter of S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 1328, 1332 (BIA 2000) 
(citing cases). The Board has also held, however, "[w]e not only encourage, but require the 
introduction of corroborative testimonial and documentary evidence, where available." Jd. If 
testimonial evidence lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for the petitioner 
to submit corroborative evidence. Matter ofY-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). Vague, solicited 
letters from colleagues or associates that do not specifically identify contributions or provide specific 
examples of how those contributions influenced the field are insufficient. Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 
1036, aff'd in part, 596 F.3d at 1115? The opinions of experts in the field are not without weight 
and have been considered. users may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements 
submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 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; users may, as this decision has done, evaluate the 
content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795; see also 
Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not 
purport to be evidence as to "fact"). users may even give less weight to an opinion that is not 
corroborated, in accord with other information or is in any way questionable. Matter of Caron Int '!, 
19 I&N Dec. at 795; see also Matter ofSoffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (citing 
Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). See also 
Visinscaia, 2013 WL 6571822, at *6 (concluding that USCIS' decision to give limited weight to 
uncorroborated assertions from practitioners in the field was not arbitrary and capricious). 
While the reference letters confirm that the petitioner's work is original and contributes to the pool 
of knowledge in the field, the letters do not establish that her impact in the field has risen to a level 
3 In 2010, the Kazarian court reiterated that our conclusion that "letters from physics professors attesting to [the alien's] 
contributions in the field" were insufficient was "consistent with the relevant regulatory language." 596 F.3d at 1122. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
consistent with a contribution of major significance. Regardless of the field, the plain language of the 
phrase "contributions of major significance in the field" requires evidence of an impact beyond one's 
employer and clients or customers. See Visinscaia, --- F. Supp. 2d ---, 2013 WL 6571822, at *6 
(upholding a finding that a ballroom dancer had not met this criterion because she did not demonstrate 
her impact in the field as a whole). 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not presented evidence of her original scientific, scholarly, artistic, 
athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field of mechanical 
engineering. The petitioner has not met this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
Evidence of the alien 's authorship of scholarly articles in the field , in professional or major 
trade publication s or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
The director concluded that the petitioner has met this criterion. The petitioner has submitted 
evidence showing that she has authored a number of scholarly articles that are published in scientific 
publications, including the 
( Accordingly, the petitioner has presented evidence of her authorship of 
scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade publications or other major media. The 
petitioner has met this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that she meets this criterion because she presented for the Third 
· - and she participated in a 
poster session at the a conference held in Rhode Island. A scientific conference, 
however, is not an artistic exhibition or showcase. Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1122. Accordingly, the 
petitioner has not presented evidence of the display of her work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. The petitioner has not met this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
The director concluded that the petitioner did not meet this criterion. On appeal, the petitioner 
asserts that she meets this criterion based on her role in Dr. laboratory at her 
involvement in a research project funrlP-rl thromrh ::~ o-r::~nt from thP- SociP-tv of her 
involvement with the laboratory at the The 
petitioner asserts that the evidence shows that "she had played more than a supporting role" in these 
organizations and establishments. 
The petitioner has not shown she meets this criterion. First, the petitioner has not shown that she has 
met this criterion based on her role in Dr. laboratory. The petitioner has presented two letters 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
from Dr. , one is dated August 5, 2013 and the other is dated January 15, 2014. The August 5, 
2013 letter states that the petitioner "works as a research scientist in [Dr. J laboratory" at the 
The second letter states that the petitioner "works as a lead esea ch scientist in [the] 
laboratory" and "lead[s] testis cancer research in [the] laboratory at The petitioner has 
not provided any information relating to when she became a lead research scientist or if she was a 
lead research scientist when she filed her petition in October 2013. It is well established that the 
petitioner must demonstrate eligibility for the visa petition at the time of filing. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 
103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). The petitioner 
cannot secure a priority date based on the anticipation of a future promotion that would show her 
leading or critical role for an organization or establishment. See Matter of Wing's Tea House, 16 
I&N Dec. 158, 160 (Reg'l Cornm'r 1977); Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175-76 (Assoc. 
Cornm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Bardouille, 18 I&N Dec. 114 (BIA 1981) for the proposition that 
USCIS cannot "consider facts that come into being only subsequent to the filing of a petition. ") 
Ultimately , in order to be meritorious in fact, a petition must meet the statutory and regulatory 
requirements for approval as of the date it was filed. Ogundipe v. Mukasey, 541 F.3d 257, 261 (4th 
Cir. 2008). Moreover, merely repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy 
the petitioner's burden of proof. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 
1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 
(S.D.N.Y.). Similarly, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory assertions. 1756, Inc. v. The 
Attorney General of the United States, 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
In addition , although the petitioner has submitted documents relating to and information 
relating to Dr. _; she has not submitted documents relating to the prestige or reputation of Dr. 
laboratory . According to online printouts, is the world's oldest and largest private 
cancer center and is one of 41 National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers. 
Even if the evidence shows that is an organization or establishment that has a distinguished 
reputation, the evidence does not show that Dr. laboratory, one of an unspecified number of 
laboratories at similarly has a distinguished reputation independent of Dr. 
states that Dr. is "a world-renowned expert in DNA repair ." Dr. letters state 
that she has many years of research experience, is a tenured professor, has published scholarly 
articles and has been given awards for her work in the field of DNA repair and cancer. The 
petitioner, however , has presented minimal information on Dr.'s laboratory. According to an 
online printout about Dr. her laboratory demonstrated that the breast cancer suppressors 
BRCA1 and BRCA2 are crucial for homologous recombination repair and DNA double-strand 
breaks repair during meiosis. The petitioner, however, has not presented evidence that Dr. 
laboratory has received any awards or has been otherwise recognized in the field. As such, the 
petitioner has not shown that laboratory is an organization or establishment that has a 
distinguished reputation. 
Second , the petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence showing that her involvement in a 
research project funded by a grant from the Society of meets this criterion. According to 
Dr. :; June 18, 2013 letter, the petitioner "will play an integral role" m a study that 
evaluates DNA repair in tumors from germ cell tumor patients. According to Dr. January 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
14, 2014 letter, the petitioner "will have a leading role" in the study. Dr. similarly states in her 
January 15, 2014 letter that the petitioner "will play a leading and critical role [in] the study." The 
evidence in the record does not specify what, if anything, the petitioner had completed for the study 
at the time she filed her petition in October 2013. The supporting documents indicate that at the 
time of filing, it was anticipated that the petitioner would play a role in the study, but she had not yet 
played either a leading or critical role. As discussed, the petitioner must demonstrate eligibility for 
the visa petition at the time of filing. See 8 C.P.R. §§ 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N 
Dec. at 49. In other words, the petitioner must show that at the time of filing, she had already 
performed a leading or critical role for a qualifying organization or establishment. In addition, 
assuming the people who are involved in this study could be considered an organization or 
establishment, the petitioner has not shown that the organization or establishment has a distinguished 
reputation, as r~quired under the plain language of the criterion. See 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
Third, the petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence showing that her participation in a 
collaborative research proiect involving Dr. laboratory and Dr. laboratory at the 
_ meets this criterion. According to Dr. January 9, 2013 letter, 
in February 2012, Dr. laboratory began a collaborative research project with Dr. 
laboratory to study 
During this collaborative research project, the petitioner ' 
-
" Dr. states in his June 19, 2013 letter that the 
petitioner "was the lead project investigator in the laboratory." The evidence shows that the 
petitioner was not directly involved with Dr. laboratory at the 
Rather, while working at Dr. ~ laboratory, the petitioner participated in a collaborative project 
between Dr. laboratory and Dr. laboratory. Assuming that the collaborative 
project constitutes an organization or establishment, the petitioner has not provided evidence 
showing that the collaborative project has a distinguished reputation. Dr. states that the 
collaborative project "culminated in the publication of a primary research manuscript in th~ 
scientific journal, for which [the petitioner] and Dr. are key contributing 
authors." Publication of a scholarly article alone, without sufficient information relating to the 
impact or reception of the scholarly article in the field, is insufficient to show that the collaborative 
project has a distinguished reputation in the field. Similarly, although the petitioner has submitted 
documents relating to the these documents provide general information 
about the university and do not establish the prestige or reputation of the collaborative research 
project between Dr. s laboratory and Dr. s laboratory. 
Fourth, the petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence showing that her involvement in the 
meets this criterion. According to Dr. July 
4 
Although Dr. letter is dated January 9, 2013, it appears that the date is a typographic error. The digital 
signature notation on the letter is dated January 10, 2014 and the petitioner filed the letter in January 2014 in support of 
the petitioner's response to the director's request for evidence (RFE). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 14 
16, 2013 letter, the worked with the petitioner in collaborative research projects. 
Dr. states in his January Y, 2014 letter that the "worked with [the 
petitioner] to discover basic biological mechanisms of genomic instability that may relate to immune 
system deficiencies and cancer development." Dr. further provides that the petitioner's 
"contribution has been vital for our work" and that "[w]ithout her knowledge and skills we would 
not be able to reveal a novel antineoplastic role of AID [activation-induced cytidine deaminase] that 
can be triggered by inhibition of HR [homologous recombination], or define the novel mechanism of 
action for an experimental new drug candidate." The petitioner has submitted insufficient evidence 
showinp- th:::~t thP. . has a distinguished reputation. According to Dr. the 
"is a non-profit research institute dedicate to genetics and genomics research to 
improve human health." Dr. further states that one of the joint research projects resulted in the 
publication of a scholarly article in the According to an online 
printout, the _ has "more than 1,500 employees" and its "mission is to discover 
precise genomic solutions for disease and empower the global biomedical community in the shared 
quest to improve human health." Neither these documents nor any other documents in the record, 
however, establish the ; reputation or prestige or impact in the field. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits online printouts relating to ' 
company that spun off from the 
sufficient evidence relating her involvement with I , 
that this company has a distinguished reputation in the field. 
which is Dr. 
The petitiOner has not provided 
or documents showing 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not presented evidence that she has performed in a leading or critical 
role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. The petitioner has not 
met this criterion. See 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration 
for services, in relation to others in the field. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
The director concluded that the petitioner did not meet this criterion. On appeal, the petitioner 
asserts that she meets this criterion because she is being paid $44,000 annually and is tax exempt. 
The petitioner has submitted a December 4, 2012 letter from the stating that she was 
reappointed as a research fellow in Dr. ; laboratory for a year from March 11, 2013 through 
March 10, 2014, with a stipend of $44,100. On appeal, the petitioner submits an online printout 
from the IRS relating to Tax Treaties. The plain language of the regulation does not suggest that the 
existence of tax exemptions for the petitioner's salary or other remuneration is a relevant 
consideration. Rather, at issue is the salary or other remuneration the petitioner has commanded, not 
the amount she retained after taxes. 
The petitioner has not submitted evidence relating to salary or remuneration for service of other 
scientists working in the same field as the petitioner. Instead, on appeal, the petitioner makes the 
conclusory statements that she "is here on a 
J visa and upon information and belief [$44,000] is tax 
free and considered a high salary for individuals in the same position as her." Going on record 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 15 
without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for the purposes of meeting the burden of 
proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (citing 
Matter ofTreasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm 'r 1972)). As the petitioner 
has not provided compensation information relating to other scientists in the same field, she has not 
shown that her annual stipend of $44,100, even in the untaxed amount, constitutes a high salary or 
other significantly high remuneration for services. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not presented evidence showing that she has commanded a high 
salary or other significantly high remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. The 
petitioner has not met this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Had the petitioner submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary categories, in 
accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) 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," and (2) "that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. While we conclude that the evidence 
is not indicative of a level of expertise consistent with the small percentage at the very top of the 
field or sustained national or international acclaim, we need not explain that conclusion in a final 
merits determination. 5 Rather, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the 
antecedent regulatory requirement of presenting three types of evidence. Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 
1122. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to 
establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; 
Matter ofOtiende , 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5 
We maintain de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. United States Dep 't of Justice, 381 F.3d 
143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). In any future proceeding, we maintain the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits determination as 
the office that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(ii); see also INA§§ 103(a)(1), 204(b); DHS 
Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 C.F.R. § 103.1(f)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of 
Aurelio, 19 I&N Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987) (holding that legacy INS, now USCIS, is the sole authority with the 
jurisdiction to decide visa petitions).