dismissed EB-1A Case: Cancer Research

(b)(6)
DATE: 
SEP 11 2013 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave .• N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
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:/Jwww.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, 
::Z:·2L . VL-
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in the sciences, pursuant to 
section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U .S.C. § 1153(b )(1 )(A). The director 
determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to 
qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
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 and 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that an alien can 
establish sustained national or international acclaim through 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) through (x). The petitioner must 
submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory categories of evidence to establish 
the basic eligibility requirements. 
The petitioner 's priority date established by the petition filing date is December 11, 2012. On 
December 19, 2012 the director served the petitioner with a request for evidence (RFE). After receiving 
the petitioner's response to the RFE, the director issued his decision on March 21, 2013. On appeal, the 
petitioner submits a brief with additional documentary evidence. For the reasons discussed below, the 
petitioner has not established his eligibility for the classification sought. 
I. 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 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 
(b)(6)
Page3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(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 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. !d.; 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.P.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 evidence ofa one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized award) or 
through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten categories of evidence 
listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (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 the AAO's evaluation of 
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 users 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." /d. at 1121-22. 
The court stated that the AAO's 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)." !d. 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 matter, the AAO will review the evidence under 
the plain language requirements of each criterion claimed. As the petitioner did not submit qualifying 
evidence under at least three criteria, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. !d. 
1 
Specifically, the court stated that the MO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary 
requirements beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page4 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria2 
Documentation of the alien 's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
Initially, counsel asserted that the petitioner's research grant and travel awards serve to meet this 
criterion. The director requested additional evidence, such as evidence of the significance of the 
awards, the pool of candidates, and the number of awards annually. In response, counsel discussed both 
the research grant and the travel awards in her cover letter and submitted additional evidence. The 
director concluded that the petitioner had not demonstrated that the awards were nationally or 
internationally recognized awards for excellence. On appeal, counsel's discussion of the research grant 
is virtually identical to the response to the director's RFE. Counsel's brief does not address the travel 
awards. The petitioner resubmitted previously submitted evidence, including the travel awards. 
Counsel claims that the petitioner qualifies under this criterion on appeal without indicating what error 
in law or error in fact the director made within his decision and without explaining why the AAO 
should find those claims any more persuasive than the director did. Therefore, the AAO considers the 
petitioner's claims under this criterion to be abandoned. See Desravines v. United States Attorney Gen., 
No. 08-14861 , 343 F. App'x 433, 435 (11th Cir. 2009) (fmding that issues not briefed on appeal are 
deemed abandoned). Regardless, the record lacks any evidence that the petitioner has received any 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards designed to recognize excellence in his field of 
endeavor rather than funding designed to support future research and travel awards designed to facilitate 
travel to conferences. 
Documentation of the alien 's membership in associations in the field for which classification is 
sought, which require outstanding achievem ents of their members, as judged by recognized national 
or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
The petitioner initially claimed eligibility under this criterion, but failed to respond to the director's RFE 
as it related to this regulatory requirement. Specifically, in the RFE, the director acknowledged that the 
petitioner is a member of the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) but concluded that 
the petitioner had not demonstrated that AACR required outstanding achievements of its members. The 
director requested the "section of the association's constitution or bylaws which discuss the criteria for 
membership for the [petitioner's] level of membership in the association." The petitioner did not 
address this criterion in response and did not submit the requested bylaws or constitution. Thus, the 
director concluded that the petitioner had not satisfied the requirements of this criterion. On appeal, 
counsel reasserts that the petitioner meets this criterion and submits online membership application 
information for AACR reflecting that AACR is "open to investigators worldwide who have conducted 
two years of research resulting in articles in peer-reviewed publications relevant to cancer and cancer-
2 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the regulatory categories of evidence not 
discussed in this decision. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
PageS 
related biomedical science, or who have made substantial contributions to cancer research in an 
administrative or educational capacity." Counsel repeats this language, but does not explain how two 
years of research resulting in peer-reviewed articles is an outstanding achievement for a cancer 
researcher or how a single membership can meet the plain language requirements of this criterion, 
which is worded in the plural. 
The regulation states that the petitioner shall submit additional evidence as the director, in his or her 
discretion, may deem necessary. The purpose of the request for evidence is to elicit further 
information that clarifies whether eligibility for the benefit sought has been established, as of the 
time the petition is filed. See 8 C.P.R. §§ 103.2(b)(8) and (12). The failure to submit requested 
evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.P.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(14). 
Where, as here, a petitioner has been put on notice of a deficiency in the evidence and has been 
given an opportunity to respond to that deficiency, the AAO will not accept evidence offered for the 
first time on appeal. See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); see also Matter of 
Obaigbena , 19 I&N Dec. 533 (BIA 1988). If the petitioner had wanted the submitted evidence to be 
considered, he should have submitted the documents in response to the director's request for 
evidence. !d. Under the circumstances, the AAO need not and does not consider the sufficiency of 
the evidence submitted on appeal. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien 's work in the field for which classification is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the 
title, date, and author of the material, an.d any necessary translation. 
The petitioner initially claimed eligibility under this criterion, but failed to respond to the director's RFE 
as it related to this regulatory requirement. Specifically, in the RFE, the director acknowledged that the 
petitioner had submitted a list of articles that have cited his research but concluded that citing articles 
were not about the petitioner. The director requested evidence "that the submitted published material 
was about the [petitioner] and [his] work in the field." The petitioner did not address this criterion in 
response and did not submit the requested evidence. Thus, the director concluded that the petitioner had 
not satisfied the requirements of this criterion. On appeal, counsel asserts that the citations to the 
petitioner's research is evidence of the significance of his contributions, but fails to address this 
criterion. Accordingly, the petitioner has abandoned that claim. See Sepulveda v. US Att'y Gen., 401 
P.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir.2005); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-2731, 2011 WL 4711885 at *9 
(E.D. N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011). 
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 specification for which classification is sought. 
The director determined the petitioner met the requirements of this criterion. The petitioner has 
submitted sufficient evidence to establish that he meets this criterion. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
The plain language of this regulatory criterion contains multiple evidentiary elements that the petitioner 
must satisfy. The first is evidence of the petitioner's contributions (in the plural) in his field. These 
contributions must have already been realized rather than being potential, future contributions. The 
petitioner must also demonstrate that his contributions are original. The evidence must establish that the 
contributions are scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related in nature. The final 
requirement is that the contributions rise to the level of major significance in the field as a whole, rather 
than to a project or to an organization. The phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, it 
has some meaning. Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 51 F. 3d 28, 31 (3rd Cir. 1995) 
quoted in APWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 626 (2nd Cir. Sep 15, 2003). Contributions of major 
significance connotes that the petitioner's work has significantly impacted the field. The petitioner 
must submit evidence satisfying all of these elements to meet the plain language requirements of this 
criterion. 
The director determined that although the petitioner demonstrated his original contributions, he failed to 
document how these contributions were already of major significance in the petitioner's field. 
Counsel separated his discussion of the petitioner's research into three areas: prostate cancer, 
biomedical cancer, and pneumonia. Within the appellate brief, counsel indicates that the petitioner's 
prostate cancer research demonstrates how to inhibit cancer cell develoement in androgen-independent 
rostate cancer. He supports this position by referencing the letter from 
. . . states: "[The petitioner's research] would save 
thousands of lives in the United States and worldwide." statement does not establish that 
the petitioner's research has resulted in a significant impact within the field, which is required by this 
regulatory criterion. Instead, he merely indicates a future potential impact that the petitioner's research 
could have in the field. Specifically, J asserts that researchers at 
"closely follow" the petitioner's research and "look forward for many major contributions." A 
petitioner must establish the elements for the approval of the petition at the time of filing. 8 C.P.R. 
§§ 103.2(b )(1), (12). A petition may not be approved if the beneficiary was not qualified at the priority 
date, but expects to become eligible at a subsequent time. See Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 
(Reg'l Comm'r 1971). This evidence does not establish that, as of the priority date, the petitioner had 
contributed to his field in a significant manner as required by the regulation. 
The petitioner also submitted a letter from 
, is working with the petitioner on 
the research to block the growth of prostate cancer and discusses the collaborative research he and the 
petitioner are conducting. explains that the screening tests he and the petitioner are performing 
"are very important in identifYing new inhibitors that prevent prostate cancer." did not explain 
how the petitioner's findings have already been shown to block cancer growth and does not assert that 
their research results are being widely adopted within the field. He only discussed the potential benefits 
that the research could yield. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
The remaining letters identified within the appellate brief that relate to the petitioner's prostate cancer 
research only discuss the petitioner's research, the impact it could have, and his research findings. The 
letters do not indicate that his research findings have already been reproduced or verified within the 
field. Incremental improvements through screenings that narrow the list of potential inhibitors are not 
sufficient to meet this criterion's requirement that the petitioner has already made contributions within 
his field that are significant. 
The appellate brief also asserts that the petitioner's "major, original scientific research contribution is 
and that the binding of a particular 
~ _ The brief summarizes these discoveries to conclude 
that the petitioner's findings will increase the likelihood that radiation therapy is an option for those 
patients whose tumors would not have otherwise responded favorably to such therapy. Counsel's brief 
supports this position first with the letter from • 
described the petitioner 's research 
findings as original and important, and stated that "the significance of [the petitioner's] work lies in the 
development of new drugs , · · 
continues that the petitioner's work has "opened up new ways to 
develop drugs to combat human cancer in the absence of Although 
indicated that a prestigious international journal cited to the petitioner's research within a 
few months, did not indicate that new drugs had been developed that mimic the 
While the petitioner's research has received some attention in the literature and may have the 
potential to eventually impact the field, it has not resulted in significant progress toward the creation of 
a proven drug to mimic the Consequently, the petitioner has not demonstrated that his 
findings have already impacted the field; he has only showed that it has the potential to do so, which is 
not sufficient to meet this criterion's requirements. 
indicated that the 
petitioner's research "fmdings lead to the development of new strategies in radiation therapy to treat 
cancer patients who havE ' However, : did not identify any radiation provider 
that has changed its procedures based on the petitioner's work. Instead, simply asserts 
that he has cited the petitioner's work without elaborating on how he has utilized the petitioner's 
findings. The remaining letters noted within the appellate brief indicate that the petitioner's research 
findings can lead to the development of cancer fighting drugs, that it shows a high potential for cancer 
treatment, and that it could induce cancer cell death. The plain meaning of the regulatory language 
requires evidence that the petitioner's original contributions have already impacted the field at a level 
consistent with contributions of major significance. 
The petitioner also presents his work related to pneumonia research as a contribution of major 
significance in his field. However, the letters generally identify areas of potential contributions in 
which the petitioner's "discovery opens up the possibility of developing drugs ... which could lead to 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page8 
the prevention of ' Research findings that are important and have the 
potential to make a significant impact within the petitioner's field fall short of the level of research that 
has proven its worthiness and has been implemented, adopted, and has had a measurable impact within 
a field of endeavor. Research that has the potential to be a breakthrough finding is not sufficient to 
satisfy this criterion's requirements. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), (12). 
Solicited letters that do not specifically identify contributions or provide specific examples of how those 
contributions influenced the field are insufficient. Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (91h Cir. 
2009) aff'd in part 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). In 2010, the Kazarian court reiterated that the 
AAO's conclusion that "letters from physics professors attesting to [the alien's] contributions in the 
field" was insufficient was "consistent with the relevant regulatory language." 596 F.3d at 1122. The 
opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and have been considered above. While such 
letters can provide important details about the petitioner's abilities and research findings, they cannot 
form the cornerstone of a successful extraordinary ability claim. users may' in its discretion, use as 
advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 
19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (eomm'r 1988). However, users is ultimately responsible for making the final 
determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. /d. The submission of letters from 
experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; users may 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). 
Within the initial filing, the petitioner provided evidence of being invited to give conference 
presentations related to his research and citations to his work. Only evidence that was in existence on 
the date the petitioner filed the petition is probative of the petitioner's eligibility as of that date. As a 
result, any presentations or citations that occurred after December 11, 2012 are not probative evidence 
of eligibility in this proceeding. However, the petitioner failed to document that any of his scholarly 
presentations were widely cited or had otherwise had a significant impact in his field. 
Within the proceedings before the director, the petitioner initially submitted a scientific article titled, 
Although the petitioner did not provide the number of times 
this article had been cited by others in the field, he did provide evidence in response to the RFE that 
indicated 81 citations. However, the authors of this article, , merely 
cited to one of the petitioner's articles and thanked him for his technical assistance rather than also 
listing him as an additional author. The petitioner has not established that citations to an article to 
which his contribution was insufficient to garner authorship credit is probative of the petitioner's impact 
in the field. As such, this article has limited probative value in establishing the impact of the 
petitioner's research. 
The petitioner provided additional evidence in response to the RFE demonstrating that one of his 
articles received a small number of citations. It is not persuasive that this small amount of citations of 
the petitioner's article is reflective of the major significance of his work in the field. The petitioner 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
failed to establish how those minimally cited findings have significantly contributed to his field as 
required by this regulatory criterion. 
Based on the foregoing, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language 
requirements of this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The director determined the petitioner met the requirements of this criterion. The petitioner has 
submitted sufficient evidence to establish 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. 
The petitioner claims eligibility under this criterion based on his role performed at the The 
leading or critical role arguments within the appeal brief are virtually identical to the response to the 
director's RFE. The petitioner claims that he qualifies under this criterion on appeal without indicating 
what error in law or error in fact that the director made within his decision and without explaining why 
the AAO should find those claims any more persuasive than the director did. Therefore, the AAO 
considers the petitioner's claims under this criterion to be abandoned . See Desravines, 343 F. App'x at 
435. Regardless, the record lacks any evidence that the petitioner has performed in a leading or critical 
role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
Even if the petitioner had demonstrated that his claims related to satisfy this criterion's 
requirements, is but one organization the plain language or me regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires evidence that the petitioner has performed in a leading or critical role for 
"organizations or establishments" in the plural, consistent with the statutory requirement for extensive 
documentation. See section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act. 
B. Summary 
The petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. 
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 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
"level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the 
very top of the[ir] 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 the AAO concludes 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, the AAO need not explain that conclusion in a 
final merits determination. 3 Rather, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the 
antecedent regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. I d. at 1122. 
The petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act and the petition 
may not be approved. 
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 of 
Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3 The AAO maintains de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d 
Cir. 2004). In any future proceeding, the AAO maintains 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 section 103(a)(1) of 
the Act; section 204(b) of the Act; 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).