dismissed EB-1A Case: Cancer Research

U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices
AdministrativeAppealsOffice (AAO)
20 MassachusetisAve., N.W., MS2090
Washington,DC 20529-2090
U.S.Citizenship
and ImmigratiOn
Services
DATE: Office: TEXASSERVICECENTER FILE:
DEC2 12012
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionfor Alien WorkerasanAlienof ExtraordinaryAbility Pursuantto Section
203(b)(1)(A)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct,8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A)
ONBEHALFOFPETITIONER:
SELF-REPRESENTED
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind thedecisionof theAdministrativeAppealsOfficein yourcase. All of thedocuments
relatedto thismatterhavebeenreturnedto theofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcase.Pleasebeadvisedthat
anyfurtherinquirythatyoumighthaveconcerningyourcasemustbemadetothatoffice.
If you believethe AAO inappropriatelyappliedthe law in reachingits decision,or you haveadditional
informationthatyouwishto haveconsidered,you mayfile a motionto reconsideror a motionto reopenin
accordancewith theinstructionson FormI-290B,Notice of Appealor Motion,with a fee of $630. The
specific requirementsfor filing sucha motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion
directly with the AAO. Pleasebeawarethat8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresany motionto befiled within
30 daysof the decisionthat the motion seeksto reconsideror reopen.
Thankyou,
RonRosenberg
ActingChief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscas.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION: TheDirector,TexasServiceCenter,initially deniedtheemployment-basedimmigrant
visapetitionon January4, 2012,dueto abandonment.OnJanuary19,2012,thepetitionerfiled a
motionto reopen.Thedirectorsubsequentlygrantedthemotionto reopenand,in a separatedecision,
deniedthe underlyingpetition on the merits. The visa petition is now beforethe Administrative
AppealsOffice(AAO) onappeal.Theappealwill bedismissed.
Thepetitionerseeksclassificationasan "alien of extraordinaryability" in the sciences,pursuantto
section203(b)(1)(A)of the Immigrationand NationalityAct (the Act), 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A),
specificallyin theareaof cancerresearch.Thedirectordeterminedthepetitionerhadnot established
the sustainednationalor internationalacclaimnecessaryto qualify for classificationas an alienof
extraordinaryability.
Congresssetaveryhighbenchmarkfor aliensof extraordinaryability by requiringthroughthestatute
that the petitionerdemonstratethe alien's"sustainednationalor internationalacclaim"andpresent
"extensivedocumentation"of the alien'sachievements.Seesection203(b)(1)(A)(i)of the Act and
8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3).Theimplementingregulationat8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)statesthatanaliencan
establishsustainednationalor internationalacclaimthroughevidenceof a one-timeachievementof a
major,internationallyrecognizedaward. Absentthereceiptof suchanaward,theregulationoutlines
tencategoriesof specificobjectiveevidence.8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(i)through(x). Thepetitionermust
submitqualifyingevidenceunderatleastthreeof thetenregulatorycategoriesof evidenceto establish
thebasiceligibilityrequirements.
On appeal,thepetitionersubmitsa statementandadditionalevidence.Thepetitionerassertsthathe
submittedsufficientqualifyingevidenceunderfive of theten regulatorycategories.Consideringthe
evidencein the aggregate,the petitionerhasnot establishedeligibility for the benefitsoughtby a
preponderanceof theevidence.
I. LAW
Section203(b)of theAct states,in pertinentpart,that:
(1) Priorityworkers.-- Visasshallfirst bemadeavailable. . . to qualifiedimmigrantswhoare
aliensdescribedin anyof thefollowingsubparagraphs(A) through(C):
(A) Alienswith extraordinaryability.- An alienis describedin thissubparagraphif --
(i) the alien has extraordinaryability in the sciences,arts,education,
business,or athleticswhichhasbeendemonstratedby sustainednationalor
internationalacclaimandwhoseachievementshavebeenrecognizedin the
fieldthroughextensivedocumentation,
(ii) thealienseeksto entertheUnitedStatesto continuework in theareaof
extraordinaryability,and
Page3
(iii) the alien's entry into the United Stateswill substantiallybenefit
prospectivelytheUnitedStates.
U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices(USCIS)andlegacyImmigrationandNaturalizationService
(INS)haveconsistentlyrecognizedthatCongressintendedto seta very high standardfor individuals
seekingimmigrantvisasas aliensof extraordinaryability. SeeH.R. 723 101" Cong.,2d Sess.59
(1990);56Fed.Reg.60897,60898-99(Nov.29,1991).Theterm"extraordinaryability"refersonlyto
thoseindividualsin thatsmallpercentagewhohaverisento theverytop of thefield of endeavor.Id.;
8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(2).
Theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)requiresthatthepetitionerdemonstratethealien'ssustained
acclaimandtherecognitionof hisor herachievementsin thefield. Suchacclaimmustbeestablished
eitherthroughevidenceof aone-timeachievement(thatis, a major,internationalrecognizedaward)or
throughthe submissionof qualifyingevidenceunderat leastthreeof the ten categoriesof evidence
listedat8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x).
In 2010,theU.S.CourtofAppealsfortheNinthCircuit(NinthCircuit)reviewedthedenialof apetition
filed underthisclassification.Kazarianv. USCIS,596F.3d1115(9thCir.2010).Althoughthecourt
upheldthe AAO's decisionto denythe petition,the courttook issuewith the AAO's evaluationof
evidencesubmittedto meeta given evidentiarycriterion.1 With respectto the criteriaat 8 C.F.R.
§204.5(h)(3)(iv)and(vi), thecourtconcludedthatwhileUSCISmayhaveraisedlegitimateconcerns
aboutthesignificanceof theevidencesubmittedto meetthosetwocriteria,thoseconcernsshouldhave
beenraisedin asubsequent"fmalmeritsdetermination."Id. at 1121-22.
The court statedthat the AAO's evaluationrestedon an improperunderstandingof the regulations.
Insteadof parsingthe significanceof evidenceaspartof the initial inquiry,the courtstatedthat"the
properprocedureistocountthetypesof evidenceprovided(whichtheAAOdid),"andif thepetitioner
failedto submitsufficientevidence,"theproperconclusionis thattheapplicanthasfailedto satisfythe
regulatoryrequirementof three types of evidence(as the AAO concluded)."Id. at 1122 (citing to
8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)).
Thus,Kazarian setsforth a two-partapproachwherethe evidenceis first countedandthenconsidered
in thecontextof a final meritsdetermination.In thismatter,theAAO will reviewtheevidenceunder
theplainlanguagerequirementsof eachcriterionclaimed. As thepetitionerdid notsubmitqualifying
evidenceunderatleastthreecriteria,theproperconclusionis thatthepetitionerhasfailedto satisfythe
regulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence.Id.
Specifically,the court statedthat the AAO had unilaterallyimposednovel substantiveor evidentiary
requirementsbeyondthose set forth in the regulationsat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv)and 8 C.F.R.
§204.5(h)(3)(vi).
Page4
II. ANALYSIS
A. EvidentiaryCriteria2
Documentationof the alien's membershipin associationsin thefield for which classificationis
sought,whichrequireoutstandingachievementsof theirmembers,asjudgedbyrecognizednational
or internationalexpertsin theirdisciplinesorfields. 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(ii).
Along with the initial visa petitionapplication,the petitionersubmittedevidenceof membershipin
associationsin the field. The directordeniedthe petitioner'sclaim regardingthis criterionandthe
petitionerdoesnot identifyanyfactualor legalerrorin this conclusionon appeal.Consequently,the
petitionerabandonedthis claim. SeeSepulvedav. U.S.Att'y Gen.,401 F.3d 1226,1228n. 2 (11th
Cir.2005)citing UnitedStatesv. Cunningham,161F.3d 1343,1344(11'hCir. 1998);Hristov v.
Roark,No. 09-CV-2731,2011WL 4711885at *9 (E.D. N.Y. Sept.30, 2011)(plaintiff's claims
wereabandonedashefailedto raisethemonappealto theAAO).
Publishedmaterialaboutthealieninprofessionalor majortradepublicationsor othermajormedia,
relating to the alien's work in thefield for which classificationis sought. Suchevidenceshall
include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessarytranslation, 8 C.F.R.
§204.5(h)(3)(iii).
This criterioncontainsthreeevidentiaryrequirementsthepetitionermustsatisfy. First,thepublished
materialmustbeaboutthepetitionerandthecontentsmustrelateto thepetitioner'swork in thefield
underwhich he seeksclassificationas an immigrant. The publishedmaterialmustalsoappearin
professionalor majortradepublicationsor othermajor media(in theplural). Professionalor major
tradepublicationsareintendedfor expertsin thefield or in theindustry.To qualifyasmajormedia,the
publicationshould have significant national or internationaldistributionand be publishedin a
predominantnationallanguage.The final requirementis that the petitionerprovideeachpublished
item's title, date,andauthorandif the publisheditem is in a foreignlanguage,thepetitionermust
provide a translationthat complies with the requirementsfound at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). The
petitionermustsubmitevidencesatisfyingall of theseelementsto meettheplain languagerequirements
of thiscriterion.
The director,afterconsideringthevariousformsof evidencethatthepetitionersubmittedin supportof
this criterion,determinedthatthepetitionerfailed to meettherequirementsof this criterion. Beforethe
director,in supportof thiscriterion,thepetitionersubmitted:
1. Informationonthemeaningof "impactfactor"fromWikipedia.
2. Eightco-authoredabstracts.
3. A list of citationsfromThomsonISI's Webof ScienceandGooglescholar.
2Thepetitionerdoesnotclaimto meetor submitevidencerelatingto theregulatorycategoriesof evidence
notdiscussedin thisdecision.
Page5
4. Articlescitingthepetitioner'sco-authoredwork.
Theself-authoredmaterialunderitemnumber2 falls under8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(vi),evidenceof
authorshipof scholarlyarticlesin thefield. Thisdecisionwill considerthepetitioner'sarticlesunder
thatcriterionbelow, ultimatelyconcludingthatthepetitionermetthe criterionfor scholarlyarticles.
Meetingonecriteriondoesnot createa presumptionthatthepetitionermeetsa secondcriterion. To
hold otherwisewould renderthe statutoryrequirementfor extensiveevidenceand the regulatory
requirementthatthepetitionermeetatleastthreecriteriameaningless.
Items3 and4, documentthatotherresearchershavecitedthepetitioner'sarticles.Thesecitingarticles
areprimarily aboutthe authors'own work, not thepetitioner. As such,they do not meetthe plain
languagerequirementsof 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(iii),which requiresevidenceof publishedmaterial
aboutthepetitioner.Item 1 relatesto thereputationof thejournalsin whichthecitationsappear,and
haslittle probativevalueastowhetherthecitingarticlesareaboutthepetitioner.
On appeal,in supportof this criterion,the petitionersubmitshis own publications,medicalnews
websiteswith linksto hiswork,reviewarticleswherepetitioner'swork is reviewed,informationabout
theindividualjournalsthatpublishedthereviewarticles,andsupportlettersfrom currentandformer
employers. As notedearlier,the AAO will considerthe petitioner'sown publicationsunderthe
criterionfor scholarlyarticles. Thenewssiteslinking to thepetitioner'swork, like theciting articles
mentionedabove,arenot publishedmaterialaboutthepetitionerrelatingto his work. Similarly,the
topic reviewarticles,which cite between35 and278researcharticles,areaboutrecenttrendsin the
petitioner'sfield andarenot aboutthepetitionerrelatingto hiswork. Theinformationregardingthe
journalsis backgroundinformationanddoesnot constitutepublishedmaterialaboutthe petitioner.
Supportlettersareindividualcommunicationsandarenotpublicationsin majormedia.
Accordingly,thepetitionerhasfailedtosatisfytherequirementsof thiscriterion.
Evidenceof thealien'sparticipation,eitherindividuallyor on a panel,as ajudge of the workof
others in the same or an allied field of specification for which classification is sought. 8 C.F.R.
§204.5(h)(3)(iv).
The directordeterminedthepetitionerestablishedthis criterionandthedocumentaryevidencesupports
thefinding thatthepetitionersatisfiedtheregulatoryrequirements.
Evidenceof the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related
contributionsofmajorsignificancein thefield. 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(v).
The director found that the petitioner failed to satisfy the requirementsset forth at 8 C.F.R.
§204.5(h)(3)(v).Theplainlanguageof theregulationrequiresboththatthepetitioner'scontributions
beoriginalandof majorsignificancein thefield. USCISmustpresumethatthe word "original" and
the phrase"major significance"are not superfluousand, thus, that they have some meaning.
Page6
Silvermanv.EastrichMultipleInvestorFund,L.P.,51E.3d28,31(3'' Cir. 1995) quotedinAPWU
v.Potter,343F.3d619,626(2"dCir.Sep15,2003).
Onappeal,in supportof thiscriterion,thepetitioneragainreferencesmuchof thesamedocumentary
evidencehepresentsfor severalothercriteriaoutlinedin 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)including:articles
he authored,articles citing his work, requestsfor reprints of presentationsand publications,
backgroundinformationaboutmeetingshe attendedand backgroundinformationon his research
topics,andvarioussupportletterssupplementingotherlettersthatarealreadyin therecord. Muchof
theevidencethatthepetitionersubmitson appealis not probativeor relevantunderthiscriterionand
hasbeenor will beconsideredunderalternateregulatorycriteria. Theregulationscontaina separate
criterionregardingtheauthorshipof publishedarticles. 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi).If theregulations
areto be interpretedwith anylogic, it mustbepresumedthattheregulationviewscontributionsasa
separateevidentiaryrequirementfrom scholarly articles? Regardingthe impact factor of the
publications,the AAO will not presumethe significanceof an individualarticlefrom thejournal in
which it appears. Rather,the petitionermust demonstratethe actualimpact of the article upon
disseminationin thefield. While thepetitionerdid submitevidencethathis individualarticleshave
garneredsomecitations,asof thedateof filing hehadonemoderatelycitedarticleandhisremaining
articleshadgarneredfewor nocitations.
The variouslettersof supportdo directly discussthe petitioner'scontributionsand thereforeare
relative,probativeevidenceunderthis criterion. As an initial matter,
who wasthe petitioner'smentorandthesisadvisorat the
Universityof Annanin Chennai,India,writesa letterof supportthatprovidesdetailedbiographical
informationand confirmsthe contentsof the petitioner's curriculumvitae about the petitioner's
educationalbackground,training,andthe petitioner'sresearchinterestsat the variousstagesof his
educationand training. letter indicatesthat the petitioner, following the
completionof his Ph.D.in 2003from AnnanUniversityin Chennai,India,workedat Annan
University asa Ixcturer in the Centerfor Biotechnologyuntil 2004. The petitionersubsequently
completedhis first PostdoctoralResearchFellowshipat the Institute of Cellular and Organismic
Biology in Taipei, Taiwan. The petitioner thenworked asa PostdoctoralResearchAssociateat the
University of Illinois's Collegeof Medicine at Peoriaprior to joining M.D. AndersonCancerCenter
in Houston,Texas,asaPostdoctoralResearchFellow in 2009,andnowcontinueshiswork in cancer
researchasa seniorresearcher.And while in his letter makesbroadconclusory
statementsaboutthequalityof thepetitioner'sresearchandtheimpactit couldhavetowardthecure
for cancer,thereis no specific information about the importanceand details of the petitioner's
researchor why the results of the researchshould be consideredas a contribution of major
significancein thefield. USCISneednot acceptprimarily conclusoryassertions.1756,Inc. v. The
AttorneyGeneralof the UnitedStates,745F. Supp.9, 15 (D.C.Dist. 1990). In evaluatingsupport
3Publicationandpresentationsarenot sufficientevidenceunder8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(v)absentevidence
thattheywereof "majorsignificance."Kazarianv. USCIS,580F.3d1030,1036(9'"Cir. 2009)aff'd inpart
596F.3d1115(9thCir.2010).In 2010,theKazariancourtreaffirmeditsholdingthattheAAO didnotabuseits
discretionin findingthatthealienhadnotdemonstratedcontributionsof majorsignificance.596F.3dat1122.
Page7
letters,lettersfrom independentreferenceswho werepreviouslyawareof thepetitionerthroughhis
reputationandwho haveappliedhis work are far morepersuasivethan lettersfrom independent
referenceswho were not previously aware of the petitioner and are merely respondingto a
solicitationto reviewthepetitioner'scurriculumvitaeandwork andprovideanopinionbasedsolely
on this review. Ultimately, evidencein existenceprior to the preparationof the petition carries
greaterweightthannewmaterialspreparedespeciallyfor submissionswith thepetition.
.It appearsfrom the recordthat at the
Universityof Utahandcoauthorof , oneof thepetitioner'scoauthors,provided
his letterin responseto an invitation to providean opinionbasedupona reviewof the petitioner's
curriculumvitae and his work ratherthan affirming the petitioner'simpact on their own work.
Accordingly, letter carriesminimal weight as a documentevincingthe petitioner's
originalscientificcontributionof majorsignificancein thefield of cancerresearch.Theletterfrom
an associateprofessorat The Ohio StateUniversity who previously
workedat theM.D. AndersonCancerCenter,devotesmuchof hisletterdiscussingthegreatimpact
of thepetitioner'sresearchthatformedthebasisof a manuscript,which thepetitionerultimatelyco-
authored. discusseshow the manuscripthasbeensubmittedto the most prestigious
journalin thefield, CancerCell. However,asthemanuscripthasnot actuallybeenpublishedor has
been acceptedfor publication, neither the manuscriptnor the underlying researchsuffices as
probativeevidenceof acontributionof amajorsignificancein thefield.
Theregulatoryrequirementfor contributionsof majorsignificanceindicatesthatthemerepotentialto
impactthefield in thefutureis insufficient. Rather,a petitionermusthavesufficientdocumentation
demonstratingthat the contributionshavebeenalreadyachieved.The followingcolleaguesand
scientistsin thefieldsubmittedsupportlettersonbehalfof thepetitioner: , Assistant
Professorin the Departmentof RadiationOncolo at M.D. AndersonCancer,who knows the
petitionerasaseniorresearcherin hisdepartment; Professorof PathologyatM.D.
Andersonwho hasa laborator thathas.roducedwerk ' s , i' . ..- .- ' '..- e' - . . .. . -.;
e
at Peoria,the programwherethe petitionerworkedas a researchassociate;
, Professorof PharmacologyandMedicineat the Universityof Illinois Collegeof Medicineat
Peoria,who alsoheldanappointmentin theCancerBiologyDepartmentwherethepetitionerworked;
and AssociateProfessorof Urology and Biochemistryat New York Medical
College,who appearsto know of the petitionersolely throughhis familiarity with the petitioner's
research.While thelettersarecomplimentaryof the petitioner'sresearchandhis abilities,theyalso
discussthepotentialfutureimpactthatthepetitionerandhisresearchendeavorscouldhavein thefield.
Furthermore,someof theletterssuggestthatthewritersareimpressedwith howthepetitionercompares
with otherscientistsin theearlystagesof theircareer.Forinstance, writes:
Thesearehighly competitiveawardsandreflectthe exceptionalachievementsof [the
petitioner]madeat sucha youngage. He wasalsorecipientof theAMGEN Award
PosterFinalistsandPostgraduateBasicScienceResearchat theTraineeResearchDay
trainingprogramatMDAnderson.Hehassixpeer-reviewedpublicationsin prestigious
Page8
journals,and twenty-onescientificpresentationsat major conference,and scientific
workshops.All of theseareextremelyrareachievementsfor ascientistof hisage.
writes:
In a relativelyshortamountof time,[thepetitioner]haspublisheda significantamount
of work . . . . Overall,it is veryrareto accomplishasmuchas[thepetitioner]hasin the
pasttwo yearsindicatinghis extraordinarycapabilityandaccumulatedknowledgeand
ideasaboutgliomabiologyandbraincancers.
Similarly, statesthatthe petitioneris in the "top 1%of all the cancerresearchersI have
trained,"observesthathiscareer"hasdevelopedatpace,"andthathe"hasevolvedintooneof themost
outstandingyoungcancerresearchers."Theseauthorsdonotexplainhowrankinghighlyamongyoung
researchersis acontributionof majorsignificancein thefield. Theimplementingregulatorysubsection
for this specificcriterionrequiresthatthe contributionmustbe of major significance"in the field."
Neitherthe statutenor theregulationprovidesfor a furtherqualificationbasedon an alien'sageand
limitedexperienceor otherwisesuggeststhatthepotentialfor futuredistinction,aspredictedby current
workor output,issufficient.
Thepetitioner'sfield,likemostscience,isresearch-driven,andtherewouldbelittlepointin publishing
researchthatdid not addto thegeneralpool of knowledgein thefield. Accordingto theregulationat
8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(v),andasnotedabove,analien'scontributionsmustbenot onlyoriginalbutof
majorsignificance.To beconsideredacontributionof majorsignificancein thefield of science,it can
beexpectedthattheresultswould havealreadybeenreproducedandconfirmedby otherexpertsand
a lied in theirwork. Ther m 'ninglettersdiscussingthepetitioner'scontributionsarefrom:
in the Departmentof Pathologyat YonseiUniversityCollegeof
Medicinein Seoul,Korea,whometthepetitionerin 2009whilehewasco let' artof histraining
at the M.D. AndersonCancerCenter in the
based on some of the etitioner's researchfindi and
who knows the
pet ionerso rou am y wi isresearch.
anc whiletheymaintainthatthepetitioner'sresearchhashadagreatimpact,
do not statethat otherexpertshavere roducedor confirmedthe petitioner'sresearchor otherwise
appliedtheresearchin theirwork. observesthatoneof thepetitioner'sareasof interest,Matrix
Metalloproteinase-9(MMP),is afocusof manyresearchlabs,suggestingit is apopularareaof cancer
research,butdoesnotstatethatanyof thepetitioner'sdevelopmentshavebeeninfluencingotherlabs.
suggeststhatthepetitioner'sworkwith MMPshasresultedin thedevelopmentof drugs
thatinhibit MMP. However,he hasfailedto specificallyidentifythe noveldiscoveriesthatthe
petitioner'sresearchyielded that resultedin drug development,and USCIS neednot accept
conclusoryassertionsin this regard. See1756,Inc. v. TheAttorney Generalof the
UnitedStates,745F. Supp.at 15.
Page9
Similarly,whil broadlyassertsin herletterthatherlabandotherlabshaveimplemented
thepetitioner'sresearchachievementsinto theirownwork,shefailsto provideanymeaningfuldetails
in thisregard. Moreoverwhile maintainsthatshehascitedthepetitioner'swork, the
recorddoesnot contain article(s)citing the etitioner'sresearchor publications.
Withoutfurtherdocumentation,USCIScanonlyconsider assertionthatthepetitioner's
researchachievementshavebeenincorporatedinto her own research.Moreover, producinguseful
researchthat hasbeenincorporatedinto one laboratoryis not indicativeof contributionsof major
significancein thefield. While the evidencedemonstratesthatthepetitioneris a talentedresearcher
with potential,it falls shortof establishingthatthepetitionerhadalreadymadecontributionsof major
significance.
Forallof theabovereasons,thepetitionerfailedtoestablishhiseligibilityunderthiscriterion.
Evidenceof thealien'sauthorshipof scholarlyarticlesin thefield, in professionalor majortrade
publicationsorothermajormedia.8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(vi).
Thedirectordeterminedthepetitionerestablishedthiscriterionandthedocumentaryevidencesupports
thefindingthatthepetitionersatisfiedtheregulatoryrequirements.
Evidenceof thedisplayof thealien'sworkin thefield at artisticexhibitionsor showcases.8 C.F.R.
§204.5(h)(3)(vii).
Thepetitionersubmittedevidencewith regardto thiscriterionalongwith theinitialvisapetition.The
director,however,deniedthepetitioner'sclaim andthepetitionerdoesnotidentifyanyfactualor legal
errorin thisconclusionon appeal.Consequently,thepetitionerabandonedthisclaim. SeeSepulveda,
401F.3dat1228n.2 citing Cunningham,161F.3dat1344;Hristov,2011WL 4711885at*9.
Evidencethat the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizationsor
establishmentsthathavea distinguishedreputation. 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii).
This criterion anticipates that a leading role should be apparentby its position in the overall
organizationalhierarchyandthat it be accompaniedby the role's matchingduties. A critical role
shouldbeapparentfrom thepetitioner'simpacton theorganizationor theestablishment'sactivities.
The petitioner's performancein this role should establishwhether the role was critical for
organizationsor establishmentsasa whole. Thepetitionermustdemonstratethatthe organizations
or establishments(in theplural)havea distinguishedreputation.Whileneithertheregulationnor
precedentspeakto whatconstitutesa distinguishedreputation,Merriam-Webster'sonlinedictionary
definesdistinguishedas,"markedby eminence,distinction,or excellence."4Dictionariesarenot of
themselvesevidence,but theymay be referredto asaidsto the memoryandunderstandingof the
court. Nix v. Hedden,149U.S.at 306. Therefore,it is the petitioner'sburdento demonstratethat
4Seehttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionan/distinguished,accessedonDecember12,2012.
Page10
theorganizationsor establishmentsclaimedunderthiscriterionaremarkedby eminence,distinction,
excellence,or a similar reputation. The petitionermust submit evidencesatisfyingall of these
elementsto meettheplain languagerequirementsof thiscriterion.
Thedirectordeterminedthatthepetitionerfailedto satisfytherequirementsof this criterion. On
appeal,thepetitionerassertsthatthereis sufficientevidenceestablishingthathehasperformedin a
leadingor criticalrolefor organizationsor establishmentsthathavea distinguishedreputationand
submitteddocumentaryevidencealongwith his statementaccompanyingthe appeal.Not all of the
documentsthat the petitionersubmitsarerelevantor probativeevidenceunderthis criterion. For
instance,thepetitionerreferencesthesamearticles,newsletters,andabstractsthatheidentifiedas
documentaryevidenceunderothercriteria.5Thepetitioner,however,hassubmittedother evidence,
suchassupportlettersfrom currentandformer e ers describin his role in varioussettin .
For instance,
Anderson,states: s a semorrese er m my partmenthisrole is critical andheplaysa leading
role in a teamof cancerresearcherswho are unravelingone of the nation's most lethal cancers
(typographicalerrorsomitted)." ThepetitioneralsosubmittedevidencedemonstratingthattheM.D.
AndersonCancerCenter,theinstitutioncurrentlyemployinghim, hasa distinguishedreputationfor
cancerresearchandpatientcare. However,the lettersdiscussingthe petitioner'srole at MD
AndersonCancerCenterdonotsufficientlyprovideinformationonhisstandingin theinstitutional
hierarchyor how his positionasa seniorresearcherwithin onedepartmentis critical to the entire
organization.
Regardless,the petitionerstill fails to meetthe plain meaningrequirmentsunderthe regulation.
While the petitioner has submittedsupport letters from other institutions, he only submitted
documentationevincingthe distinguishedreputationof the M.D. AndersonCancerCenter. The
plain languageof theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii)requiresevidenceof leadingor critical
role for "organizations"and "establishments"in the plural, which is consistentwith the statutory
requirementfor extensiveevidence. Section203(b)(1)(A)of the Act. Significantly,not all of the
criteriaat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)arewordedin theplural. Specifically,theregulationsat 8 C.F.R.
§§204.5(h)(3)(iv)and(ix) only requireserviceon a singlejudging panelor a singlehighsalary. When
a regulatorycriterion wishesto include the singularwithin the plural, it expresslydoesso aswhen it
statesat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) that evidenceof experiencemust be in the form of "letter(s)."
Therefore,the inferenceis that theplural in the remainingregulatorycriteria meaning. In a different
context,federalcourtshaveupheldUSCIS' ability to interpretsignificancefrom whetherthesingularor
pluralisusedin aregulation
s Previoussectionsin thedecisionhavealreadydiscussedhow meetingonecriterioncannotleadto the
presumptionthatthepetitionerhasmetanothercriterion.
' SeeMaramjayav. USCIS,Civ.Act. No.06-2158(RCL)at 12(D.C.Cir. March26,2008);Snapnames.com
Inc. v. Chertoff',2006WL 3491005at *10 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2006)(upholdingan interpretationthat the
regulatoryrequirementfor "a" bachelor'sdegreeor "a" foreignequivalentdegreeat 8C.F.R.§ 204.5(1)(2)
requiresasingledegreeratherthanacombinationof academiccredentials).
Page11
Accordingly,thepetitionerfailedtomeetthiscriterion.
B. Summary
The petitionerhas submittedsufficientrelevant,probativeevidenceto only satisfythe regulatory
requirementsfor twotypesof evidence.
III. CONCLUSION
Thedocumentationsubmittedin supportof a claimof extraordinaryability mustclearlydemonstrate
thatthealienhasachievedsustainednationalor internationalacclaimandis oneof thesmallpercentage
whohasrisentotheverytopof thefieldof endeavor.
Had the petitionersubmittedthe requisiteevidenceunderat leastthreeevidentiarycategories,in
accordancewith the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a final merits determinationthat
considersall of theevidencein thecontextof whetheror not thepetitionerhasdemonstrated:(1) a
"level of expertiseindicatingthatthe individualis oneof thatsmallpercentagewhohaverisento the
very top of the[ir] field of endeavor"and(2) "that the alienhassustainednationalor international
acclaimandthat his or her achievementshavebeenrecognizedin the field of expertise."8 C.F.R.
§§204.5(h)(2)and(3); seealsoKazarian,596F.3dat 1119-20.While theAAO concludesthatthe
evidenceis notindicativeof alevelof expertiseconsistentwith thesmallpercentageattheverytopof
thefieldor sustainednationalor internationalacclaim,theAAO neednotexplainthatconclusionin a
final meritsdetermination.7Rather,theproperconclusionis thatthepetitionerhasfailedto satisfythe
regulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence.Id. at1122.
Thepetitionerhasnotestablishedeligibilitypursuanttosection203(b)(1)(A)of theActandthepetition
maynotbeapproved.
Theburdenof proofin visapetitionproceedingsremainsentirelywith thepetitioner.Section291of the
Act, 8 U.S.C.§ 1361. Here,thepetitionerhasnot sustainedthatburden. Accordingly,the appealwill
bedismissed.
ORDER: Theappealisdismissed.
7TheAAO maintainsdenovoreviewof all questionsof factandlaw. SeeSoltanev.DOJ,381F.3d143,145
(3d Cir. 2004). In any futureproceeding,the AAO maintainsthejurisdictionto conducta final merits
determinationastheofficethatmadethelastdecisionin thismatter.8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(ii).Seealsosection
103(a)(1)of theAct; section204(b)of theAct; DHSDelegationNumber0150.1(effectiveMarch1, 2003);
8 C.F.R.§ 2.1(2003);8 C.F.R.§ 103.1(f)(3)(iii)(2003);Matterof Aurelio, 19I+N: Dec.458,460(BIA
1987)(holdingthat legacyINS, now USCIS,is the sole authoritywith the jurisdiction to decidevisa
petitions).