dismissed EB-1A Case: Cancer Research

aim- data we@ u, t &ady unwd QF inva910n 0( w''~ -$-I orhmcV 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration1 
FILE: Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: JUL 1 5 2005 
497 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
V 
e~obert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, California Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(,4) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 8 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability in the 
sciences. The director determined that the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international 
acclaim requisite to classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
(I) Priority Workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are aliens 
described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with Extraordinary Ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
The applicable regulation defines the statutory term "extraordinary ability" as "a level of expertise indicating 
that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 
8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(2). Specific supporting evidence must accompany the petition to document the "sustained 
national or international acclaim" that the statute requires. 8 C.F.R. 3 204.5(h)(3). An alien can establish 
sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a "one-time achievement (that is, ;l major, 
international recognized award)." Id. Absent such an award, an alien can establish the necessary sustained 
acclaim by meeting at least three of ten other regulatory criteria. Id. 
In this case, the petitioner seeks classification as an alien with extraordinary ability in the sciences as a cancer 
researcher. The record indicates that the petitioner is currently employed as a Grade II Scientist at CovX 
Pharmaceuticals Incorporated in San Diego, California. The petitioner submitted supporting documents 
including ten recommendation letters, copies of his journal articles and conference abstracts, his academic 
credentials, evidence of and relating to his membership in professional associations, citations of his journal 
articles, evidence of his income, fellowships and guest lectures in India. The director noted the petitioner's 
accomplishments, but found the record did not establish the requisite sustained acclaim. On appeal, the 
petitioner submits a brief, copies of previously submitted documents, and a recent earnings statement. The 
petitioner's claims do not overcome the substantive reasons for denial and the appeal will be dismissed. The 
evidence submitted, counsel's contentions and the director's decision are addressed in the following di., <'cussion 
of the regulatory criteria relevant to the petitioner's case. 
Page 3 
(i) Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards 
for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The director correctly determined that the petitioner did not meet this criterion. The petitioner submitted 
documentation of a "Senior Research Fellowship" granted to support the petitioner's doctoral research at the 
Cancer Institute in India, a "Post-Doctoral Fellowship" to support the petitioner's studiei at the University of 
Pretoria in South Africa, a "postdoc position" at the Institute of Bioinorganic and Radiopharmaceutical 
Chemistry at the Forschungszentrum Rossendoif in Germany, a "Post Doctoral Fellowship in Targeted 
Radioirnmunotherapy" at the University of Washington, and a "Postdoctoral Associate" position at the Sidney 
Kirnmel Cancer Center in San Diego, California. The director noted that, unlike prizes or awards for past 
achievements, fellowships are awarded to fund prospective research. The director also explained that research 
funding is inherent to scientific activity and is not necessarily evidence of sustained national or international 
acclaim. On appeal, the petitioner contends that "[tlhese are competitive scientific fellowships awarded based 
on past achievements and not merely to every qualified scientist. It is important to note that becau:;e of my 
outstanding research accomplishments in the field of cancer therapy, I was selected for these competitive 
international fellowships among several applicants. In addition, fellowships and grants are peer-reviewed . . . ." 
We do not contest that the fellowships were awarded to the petitioner based on his past achievements or that his 
fellowships may have been peer-reviewed and competitive. However, only other graduate students and 
postdoctoral researchers - not established scientists at the top of their fields - compete for such fellowships. 
The submitted documents do not demonstrate that the petitioner's fellowships are equivalent to nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards reflective of the requisite sustained acclaim. Accordingly, the 
petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
(ii) Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classification i:i sought, 
which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international 
experts in their disciplines or fields. 
The director correctly determined that the petitioner did not meet this criterion. The record contains evidence of 
the petitioner's membership in seven scientific associations and societies. First, the petitioner submitted a copy 
of his membership certificate for the International Society for -Biological Therapy of Cancer (SBT) and a 
printout from the SBT website. The printout states that regular membership requires "a MD or P'hD in a 
biological science or the equivalent and [being] an active, bona fide representative of the international scientific 
community with a specialty or interest in a field related to the bioldgical therapy of cancer" and nomination by a 
SBT member or two references. These requirements are common to scientists active in the petitioner's field and 
do not constitute outstanding achievements. 
Second, the record contains a copy of the petitioner's "Regular Membership" certificate for the Society for 
Experimental Biology and Medicine (SEBM) and a printout from the SEBM website. As stated on the ]?rintout, 
SEBM regular membership requires "active involvement in a scientific career in experimental biology or 
biomedical research evidenced by receipt of a doctoral level degree and publication of original articles in 
reviewed journals" and two professional references. Again, these are common qualifications - not outstanding 
achievements - of scientists in the petitibner's field. 
Third, the petitioner submitted evidence of his "Full Society Membership" in the Radiation Research Society. 
The submitted printout from the society's website states that membership is granted to "persons who have 
contributed to the advancement of understanding the effects and risks of radiation or have rendered service in a 
field related to radiation sciences. The fulfillment of these qualifications shall be determined by an examination 
of the accomplishments and qualifications of the candidate including publications." Two professional 
references are also required. The printout does not define "contributed to" or "rendered service" or otherwise 
indicate that such accomplishments constitute outstanding achievements, rather than active emp1o:yment in 
radiation sciences or a related field. 
Fourth, the record also evidences the petitioner's "Associate Membership" in the American Association for 
Cancer Research (AACR). The submitted printout from the AACR website indicates that associate meimbership 
requires nomination by an Active, Emeritus, or Honorary member of AACR in good standing and sublrlission of 
the applicant's curriculum vitae, but nothing equivalent to outstanding achievements. On appeal, the petitioner 
submits evidence suggesting that he is now an "Active Member" of AACR. We cannot consider this evidence 
because it arose after the petition was filed. The petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing; a 
petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See 8 
C.F.R. $ 103.2(b)(12), Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45'49 (Comm. 1971). 
Finally, the petitioner submitted evidence of his membership in the American Association of Pharmaceutical 
Sciences (AAPS), the American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS), and the American Association for the 
Advancement of Science (AAAS), but no evidence of the AAPS, AIBS or AAAS membership criteria or other 
evidence that outstanding achievements are prerequisite to membership in any of these three associations. 
The record does not establish that any of seven associations of which the petitioner is a member require 
outstanding achievements as a prerequisite to membership. Consequently, the petitioner does not rneet this 
criterion. 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientij?~, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of 
major significance in the field. 
The director correctly determined that the petitioner did not meet this criterion. The petitioner submitted eleven 
recommendation letters from scientists who know the petitioner through his graduate work in India and his 
postdoctoral positions abroad. While such letters-provide relevant information about an alien's experience and 
accomplishments, they cannot by themselves establish the alien's eligibility under this criterion because they do 
not demonstrate that the alien's work is of major significance in his field beyond the limited number of 
individuals with whom he has worked directly. Even when written by independent experts, letters solicited by 
an alien in support of an immigration petition carry less weight than preexisting, independent evidence of major 
contributions that one would expect of an alien who has earned sustained national or international ,acclaim. 
Accordingly, we review the letters as they relate to other evidence of the petitioner's contributions. 
The record indicates that the petitioner obtained his doctoral degree from the Cancer Institute of the University 
of Madras in India in 1998. Dr. A. Meenakshi, Professor and Head of the Department of Biochemical Oncology 
at the Cancer Institute and the petitioner's doctoral advisor, explains that the petitioner's "Ph.D. thesis was on 
the 'Radioimrnunolocalization of technetium-99m in a murine lymphoma" and that he "successfully targeted the 
murine lymphoma with radiolabeled monoclonal antibodies which has immense clinical relevance: in the 
management of human lymphoma." Dr. T. Rajkurnar, Scientific Director and Professor of Molecular Oncology 
at the Cancer Institute, affirms that the petitioner "worked on the tumor-specific targeting of radiolabeled 
monoclonal antibodies in a murine lymphoma model which has great relevance to the radioirnrnunodetection 
and therapy of human cancers. This work was supported by the Indian Council of Medical Research and the RD 
Birla Smarak Kosh Trust. He was a resourceful investigator and had exceptional skills in animal nnodels of 
cancers and antibody therapies." Dr. Muthukurnaran Sivanandham, Professor of Biotechnology at Anna 
University in Coimbatore, India, states that he met the petitioner while he was a graduate student at th~e Cancer 
Institute and also affirms the subject of the petitioner's doctoral research. 
The record contains copies of three articles related to the petitioner's doctoral research published in scientific 
journals. The petitioner is the lead author of all three articles, but the record indicates that only one of these 
articles has been cited by other researchers. The petitioner's article entitled "Preliminary Study on 
Immunoscintigraphy of a Murine Lymphoma Using Technetium-99M Labeled Chicken Antibcdy" and 
published in 2000 in Tumori was cited once by an independent research team in 2002. The record also contains 
copies of four abstracts (relating to the petitioner's doctoral research) of which the petitioner is the lead author 
that were presented at various scientific conferences, but the petitioner submits no evidence that these abstracts 
have been widely cited or otherwise significantly recognized in his field. Hence, the record does not establish 
that the petitioner's doctoral research made contributions of major significance to his field. 
The record includes eight letters from scientists who became acquainted with the petitioner through his four 
postdoctoral positions outside of India. Dr. Oliver W. Press, Professor of Medicine in the Division of Oncology 
at the University of Washington in Seattle, states that the petitioner worked in his laboratory at the Hutchinson 
Cancer Research Center from 2000 to 2002. Professor Press explains that his "laboratory is developing 
innovative new treatments for hematologic malignancies, including leukemias and lymphomas7' and that the 
petitioner "did a superb job evaluating the utility of pretargeted radioimmunotherapy in mice with lymphoma." 
Professor Press notes that the petitioner "presented his research findings at national meetings[,] including the 
American Association for Cancer Research [AACR]" and has "published an outstanding first-authored 
manuscript of his work in the Journal of Nuclear Medicine and is a co-author on two other manuscripts from our 
lab." Dr. D. Scott Wilbur, Professor of Radiation Oncology at the University of Washington, states that he 
collaborates with Professor Press and met the petitioner as a postdoctoral fellow in Professor Press' lalboratory. 
Professor Wilbur explains that "[iln our collaborative studies, [the petitioner] investigated the advantages of a 
novel new approach termed 'pretargeted radioimmunotherapy' over conventional radioimmunotherapy. His 
findings from those studies were quite convincing. The pretargeting achieved higher cure rates in mice 
compared with conventional radio-immunotherapy." Professor Wilbur affums that the petitioner's research was 
published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at the national AACR meeting. The significance of the 
petitioner's work at Professor Press' laboratory is similarly discussed by Dr. Joseph Rajendran, a nuclear 
medicine physician on the faculty of Radiology and Radiation Oncology at the University of Washington who 
collaborated with Professor Press on research in which the petitioner was involved, and by Dr. A. Sampath 
Narayanan, Research Professor in Pathology at the University of Washington School of Medicine who also met 
the petitioner as a postdoctoral fellow in Professor Press' laboratory. 
The petitioner submitted copies of three articles concerning his research in Professor Press' laboratory that were 
published in scientific journals in his field. He is the lead author of one article and a co-author of the other two. 
The record shows that the petitioner's co-authored article that was published in 2001 in Blood has been cited 29 
times, including five self-citations by the petitioner and his co-authors. His second co-authored article, 
published in 2003 in Blood, has been cited three times by independent research teams. However, the afticle of 
which he is the lead author, published in the Journal of Nuclear Medicine in 2003, has been cited only once by 
another research team. The petitioner also submitted copies of two abstracts printed in the proceedings of the 
2001 AACR meeting. He is the lead author of one abstract and a co-author of the other. This evidence indicates 
that the petitioner has received limited recognition for his work, but does not reflect sustained na.tiona1 or 
international acclaim. 
The record indicates that the petitioner left Professor Press' laboratory for another postdoctoral position at the 
Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center [SKCC] in San Diego, California in 2002. Dr. Albert B. Deisseroth, President 
and Chief Executive Officer of the Center, explains that the "major focus of [the petitioner's] work. was the 
development of vascular targeted delivery of antibodies and drugs to tumors, a very promising strategy for the 
therapy of solid tumors." Dr. Deisseroth also notes that the petitioner "establish[ed] a small animal imaging 
facility at the SKCC." Dr. Carl K. Hoh, Director of the Nuclear Medicine Division at the University of 
California in San Diego, explains that the petitioner "worked on the vascular targeted cancer imaging and 
therapy using radiolabeled antibodies which was a collaborative project between my laboratory and th.e Sidney 
Kimmel Cancer Center. I am confident that [the petitioner] received superior training at the Sidney Kimrnel 
Cancer Center." The petitioner submitted three conference abstracts - but no published articles - of which he is 
a co-author that are related to his research at the SKCC. The record is devoid of any evidence tlhat these 
abstracts have been widely cited or that the petitioner's work at the SKCC has otherwise been recognized as 
making major contributions to his field. 
The petitioner also submitted a letter from Dr. Peter Brust, Head of Biological Research at the Institute of 
Interdisciplinary Isotope Research at the University of Leipzig in Germany, who states that the petitioner 
worked in his former laboratory at the Institute of Bioinorganic and Radiopharmaceutical Chemistry at the 
Forschungszentrum Rossendod in Dresden. The petitioner's curriculum vitae states that he held this 
postdoctoral position for six months in 1999. Dr. Brust explains that in this position the petitioner "was 
actively involved in the characterization of glioblastoma cell lines expressing HSV1-tk gene for an important 
Positron Emission Tomography (PET) imaging project." The record contains no corroborative evidence of the 
petitioner's work in Germany. 
Finally, the record contains a letter from Dr. Marco Colombatti, Associate Professor of 1rnrnunoloj:y at the 
Department of Pathology of the University of Verona in Italy. Professor Colombatti explains that he previously 
tried to arrange a position for the petitioner in his laboratory, but was unsuccessful. Professor Colombatti 
briefly notes the petitioner's experience, skills and journal publications. 
Although the letters indicate that the petitioner's work is well regarded by those who have worked with him or 
are familiar with his work, they do not establish that his research has made major contributions to his field in a 
manner reflective of sustained national or international acclaim. The petitioner has published just three articles 
in scientific journals. While one of his co-authored articles has been widely cited, his sole first-authore:d article 
has been cited only once. The petitioner has participated in national and international conferences in his field, 
but the record is devoid of any evidence that his participation was notably distinguished or that the work he 
presented was otherwise recognized as making major contributions to his field. Accordingly, the petitioner does 
not meet this criterion. 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The director found that the petitioner met this criterion, but did not fully discuss the relevant evidence. Our 
review of the record finds that the evidence does not satisfy this criterion. As discussed above under the fifth 
criterion, the petitioner has co-authored three articles published in scientific journals. However, frequent 
publication of research findings is inherent to success as an established scientist and does not ne:cessarily 
indicate the sustained acclaim requisite to classification as an alien with extraordinary ability. Evidence of 
publications must be accompanied by documentation of consistent citation by independent experts or other 
proof that the alien's publications have had a significant impact in his field. 
The record indicates that the petitioner is the co-author of an article entitled "A Comparative Evaluation of 
Conventional and Pretargeted Radioimmunotherapy of CD20expressing Lymphoma Xenografts" that was 
published in 2001 in Blood. This article has been cited 29 times, including five self-citations by the petitioner 
and his co-authors. A second article of which the petitioner is a co-author was published in Blood in 2003 and is 
titled "Comparison of Anti-CD20 and Anti-CD45 Antibodies for Conventional and Pretargeted 
Radioimmunotherapy of B-cell Lymphomas." This article has been cited three times by independent research 
teams. The petitioner submitted a printout from BloodMed.com listing Blood as the second highest in rank 
among the top journals in general medicine with an impact factor of 8.977. 
The article first-authored by the petitioner, "Comparison of Irnrnunoscintigraphy, Efficacy, and Toxicity of 
Conventional and Pretargeted Radioimmunotherapy in CD20-Expressing Human Lymphoma Xenografts," was 
published in the Joumal of Nuclear Medicine in 2003. This article has been cited only once. The petitioner 
submitted a printout from the website of the Journal of Nuclear Medicine stating that it "is the most widely read 
peer-reviewed journal in nuclear medicine and its allied disciplines" and has "an IS1 impact factor of 4.5 10, is in 
the top 5% of all 5,748 scientific serials rated, and is ranked third based on immediacy index out of the 81 
journals included in the category of radiology, nuclear medicine, and medical imaging." However, the record 
contains no independent -evidence to corroborate this claim regarding the journal's prestige. 
The petitioner also submitted copies of nine abstracts co-authored by him from various scientific conferences. 
The petitioner is the lead author of five of these abstracts. The record contains no evidence that these abstracts 
have been published or consistently cited by independent researchers. 
We note that two of the petitioner's articles were published in 2003 and that his petition was filed in Dlecember 
2003. Hence, it is understandable that these articles were not widely cited within this short time frame. 
However, the petitioner must still establish eligibility at the time of filing. See 8 C.F.R. $ 103.2(b)(12'), Matter 
of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Comm. 1971). The evidence submitted indicates that the petitioner is the co- 
author of two articles published in a reputable medical journal, but only one of these articles has been widely 
cited. The petitioner is the lead author of a third article published in a purportedly prestigious journal in his 
field, but the article has been cited only once. This publication record is not consistent with sustained national 
or international acclaim. Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments 
that have a distinguished reputation. 
The director correctly determined that the petitioner did not meet this criterion and the petitioner does not 
contest that conclusion on appeal. The record indicates that the titioner was a postdoctoral researcher at four 
institutions before obtaining his present position at Incorporated. The letters discussed 
under the fifth criterion explain that the petitioner made valuable contributions to specific laboratories at these 
institutions and assumed important responsibilities for individual research projects, but they do not esta'blish that 
he played a leading or critical role at any of the institutions. The record also contains no independent evidence 
that these four institutions have distinguished reputations. Besides a copy of the petitioner's offer-of- 
cientist (Grade II)," the record contains no evidence of the 
Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
(ix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signijicantly high remuneration for 
services, in relation to others in thefield. 
The director correctly determined that the petitioner did not meet this criterion. The petitioner submitted 
evidence that his current salary of $70,000 at s substantially higher than the 
salaries he earned at his postdoctoral positions. On appeal, the petitioner contends that his current s;llary and 
benefits "are significantly higher than others in the field with similar level of expertise who will normally 
receive a salary of $55,000 - $60,000 in the indust academic institutions." He 
submits a copy of his recent earnings statement fro but no documentation of the 
salaries of other researchers in his field or other at his salary is significantly 
higher than others in his field. Simply going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not 
sufficient to meet the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sofici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Cornrn. 
1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Crafi of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Cornrn. 1972)). Moreover, the 
relevant comparison is to scientists at the very top of the petitioner's field, not the average or "normal" salary of 
scientists "with similar level of expertise." The record contains no evidence that the petitioner's salary is 
comparable to scientists at the very top of his field. Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
An immigrant visa will be granted to an alien under section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A), 
only if the alien can establish extraordinary ability through extensive documentation of sustained national or 
international acclaim demonstrating that the alien has risen to the very top of his or her field. The evidence in 
this case indicates that the petitioner has made valuable contributions to cancer research, but the record does not 
establish that he has achieved sustained national or international acclaim as a scientist placing him at the very 
top of his field. He is thus ineligible for classification as an alien with extraordinary ability pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1153(b)(l)(A), and his petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of'the Act, 
8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be 
dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.