dismissed EB-1A Case: Cancer Research

US. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Ofice ofAdministrative Appeals MS 2090 
ieg data defc(sd ta 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
prorent clearly unwarranted U.S. citizenship 
invasion of personal privacy 
 and Immigration 
SRC 08 002 5 1928 
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 1 153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. § 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
kkf,%:inistrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas 
Service Center. The petitioner filed an appeal, which the director deemed to be untimely. The director 
considered the late appeal as a motion to reopen and affirmed denial of the petition. The matter 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)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien 
of extraordinary ability in the sciences. The director determined that the petitioner had not established 
the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. More specifically, the director found that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate 
receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
On appeal, counsel argues that the petitioner meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3). 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are 
aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, 
business, or athletics whch has been demonstrated by sustained national or 
international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the 
field through extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization 
Service (INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for 
individuals seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 
60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of 
expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top 
of the field of endeavor. 
 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(2). 
 The specific requirements for supporting 
documents to establish that an alien has sustained national or international acclaim and recognition 
in his or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The relevant 
criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that 
he has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on October 1, 2007, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary 
ability as a cancer researcher. At the time of filing, the petitioner was workin as research scientist 
at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI) under the supervision oh Director of 
the Familial Gastrointestinal Cancer Program, DFCI. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally 
recognized award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, 
at least three of which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to 
qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. A petitioner, however, cannot establish eligibility for this 
classification merely by submitting evidence that simply relates to at least three criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
$ 204.5(h)(3). In determining whether the petitioner meets a specific criterion, the evidence itself 
must be evaluated in terms of whether it is indicative of or consistent with sustained national or 
international acclaim. A lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory 
definition of "extraordinary ability" as "a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of 
that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(2). The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria under 
8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3).' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted five Certificates of Merit from Bangalore Medical College for academic 
performance during his medical studies. The certificates state that the petitioner secured first, 
second, third, and sixth positions among the students taking university examinations in Forensic 
Medicine, Community Medicine, E.N.T [Ear, Nose, and Throat], and Ophthalmology in 1989 and 
1990. These certificates reflect institutional recognition from the petitioner's alma mater rather than 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field. Further, 
academic study is not a field of endeavor, but rather training for a future field of endeavor. 
Accordingly, student honors cannot be considered prizes or awards in the petitioner's field of 
endeavor. We cannot ignore that competition for the preceding honors was limited to students at the 
petitioner's medical school and therefore receiving these Certificates of Merit is not an indication 
that the recipient "is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor." 
 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). 
 Such student honors do not distinguish the petitioner from 
others in his field who had long since completed their educational studies. 
The petitioner submitted a July 23, 1994 letter from the National University of Singapore indicating 
that he received a "Research Studentship" to pursue a Master of Science in Pharmacology. As 
discussed, academic study is not a field of endeavor, but rather training for a future field of 
1 
The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
endeavor. Accordingly, an academic scholarship is not a prize or award for excellence in the field of 
endeavor. Moreover, competition for scholarships is limited to other students. Experienced experts 
in the field are not seeking scholarships. Thus, they cannot establish that a petitioner is one of the 
very few at the top of his field. 
The petitioner submitted test results for various medical certifications, but successfully fulfilling the 
entry requirements for one's occupation does not equate to receipt of nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field. 
The petitioner submitted documentation indicating that his presentation was selected as a "Poster of 
Distinction" at the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Digestive Disease Week 
(DDW) in 200 1. The record does not include information from the AGA indicating the significance 
of this honor or its evaluation criteria. The plain language of the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
fj 204.5(h)(3)(i) specifically requires that the petitioner's awards be nationally or internationally 
recognized in the field of endeavor and it is his burden to establish every element of this criterion. In 
this instance, there is no documentary evidence demonstrating that the preceding honor had 
significant recognition beyond the confines of the event where it was presented and therefore was 
commensurate with a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the 
field. 
The petitioner submitted a May 5, 2003 letter from - Gastroenterology 
Research Group, stating: 
On behalf of the Gastroenterology Research Group (GRG) and the American 
Gastroenterological Association (AGA), I am pleased to inform you that you have been 
selected as a recipient of the 2003 GRGIAGA Fellow Travel Award for yowr abstract . . . . 
This award consists of a $500 prize to be used to help defray your travel costs to present yowr 
abstract at Digestive Disease Week . . . in Orlando, FL. Please note that you must make 
you're your own arrangements to attend Digestive Disease Week. 
Congratulations to you and your sponsor on this achievement and for submitting such a fine 
abstract. 
We cannot conclude that an award limited to digestive disease research "trainees" constitutes a 
nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the field.2 The petitioner's 
The GRGIAGA Fellow Travel Award is annually presented to eight trainees who submit abstracts that are selected by the 
AGA for presentation at Digestive Disease Week. This award "was created to encourage trainees to become more involved 
selection for an award limited by its terms to trainees is not an indication that he is among "that 
small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). 
Receipt of this travel funding offers no meaningful comparison between the petitioner and 
experienced professionals in the field who have long since completed their research training. The 
petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top of 
their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top at some unspecified 
future time. 
The petitioner also submitted two certifications from the DDW Meeting Coordinator stating that 
abstracts coauthored by the petitioner were selected for "oral presentation" at the AGA DDW 
meetings in 2003 and 2005. Aside from presentation of research findings being inherent to the 
petitioner's field, the plain language of this criterion requires evidence of his "receipt of lesser 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor." 
[Emphasis added.] The petitioner has not established that having his abstracts selected for oral 
presentation at the AGA DDW meetings equates to his receipt of nationally or internationally 
recognized "prizes or awards" in his field. 
The petitioner submitted evidence showing that he received a "Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Service 
Award" in 2005. The record does not include information from the DFCI indicating the significance 
of this honor or its evaluation criteria. Nevertheless, this award reflects institutional recognition 
from the petitioner's employer rather than a nationally or internationally recognized award for 
excellence in his field. 
The petitioner submitted an October 5, 2006 letter from Research 
Administration, Cancer Research and Prevention Foundation, stating: 
On behalf of the Cancer Research and Prevention Foundation, we are happy to provide 
funding for fees associated with publication of the above named research article. Enclosed is 
a check for the amount of $500.00. CRPF takes pride in supporting researchers who focus on 
prevention and early detection of cancer. We applaud your efforts and wish you luck in with 
[sic] your publication and future research. 
The petitioner has not established that receiving publication support funding equates to a nationally 
or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the field. A substantial amount of 
published research is funded by grants from a variety of public and private sources. Every successful 
scientist engaged in research, of which there are hundreds of thousands, receives funding from 
somewhere. Thus, we cannot conclude that having one's work funded in such a manner constitutes 
receipt of a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the field of 
endeavor. 
in digestive disease research." See htt~://www.aastroresearch.ora/downloadsl Fellow Travel Award Desc App.pdf, 
accessed on October 22,2009, copy incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a June 2008 letter stating 
that Marquis Who's Who selected his biography "for inclusion in the forthcoming 2009 Edition of 
Who's Who in America." On appeal, the petitioner submits a certificate from Marquis Who's Who 
stating that he "is a subject of biographical record in Who's Who in America Sixty-Third Edition 
2009." 
 The petitioner also submits material about the publication from its internet site. 
 The 
petitioner's appellate submission also includes a February 2009 letter announcing "consideration" of 
his biographical profile for inclusion in the "2010 Edition of Who's Who in the World." The 
petitioner's selection and inclusion in these voluminous annual directories of professionals post-date 
the petition's filing date. A petitioner, however, must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 
8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Regl. Commr. 1971). 
Accordingly, the AAO will not consider this evidence in this proceeding. Nevertheless, the 
petitioner's selection to appear in Marquis Who's Who in America and Who's Who in the World 
represents his inclusion in comprehensive professional directories rather than his receipt of 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in his field. Appearing as 
one of thousands of other successful professionals in a frequently published directory is not 
persuasive evidence of national or international acclaim. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classfication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, a petitioner must 
show that the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for admission to 
membership. Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a given field, minimum 
education or experience, standardized test scores, grade point average, recommendations by 
colleagues or current members, or payment of dues, do not satisfy this criterion as such requirements 
do not constitute outstanding achievements. Further, the overall prestige of a given association is 
not determinative; the issue here is membership requirements rather than the association's overall 
reputation. 
The petitioner submitted documentation showing that he "qualified for and became a member of 
Mensa." Information submitted by the petitioner from Mensa's internet site indicates that "the only 
qualification for membership" in the society is "a high IQ" and that "[tlhere is simply no one 
prevailing characteristic of Mensa members other than high IQ. . . . Mensas range in age from 4 to 
94 . . . ." There is no evidence showing that this organization requires outstanding achievements 
rather than simply demonstrating a high intelligence quotient. Moreover, there is no evidence 
indicating that Mensa constitutes an association "in the field for which classification is sought," 
biomedical research. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of his membership in the American Association of Cancer 
Research (AACR) and material from its internet site stating that "Active membership is open to 
established investigators who have conducted two years of research resulting in articles in peer- 
Page 7 
reviewed publications." As publication of research findings is inherent to the petitioner's field, we 
cannot conclude that authorship of refereed journal articles and having two years of experience equate 
to outstanding  achievement^.^ 
The petitioner submitted a letter welcoming him as an "Associate" of the American College of 
Physicians (ACP) stating: 
Associateship is a special, but temporary, category of membership usually limited to 
physicians in residency programs within the first five postgraduate years after medical 
school. As an Associate, you will enjoy all membership privileges except the right to vote, 
hold office, or to propose candidates for Membership in the College. 
There is no evidence showing that acceptance as an Associate in the ACP requires outstanding 
achievements. Rather, the Associate member designation is among the least restrictive of the ACP's 
membership classifications and is an entry-level designation intended for "Residents and fellows-in- 
training."4 We cannot conclude that the petitioner's level of membership in the ACP is an indication 
that he "is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). As discussed, the petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, 
intended for individuals already at the top of their respective fields, rather than for individuals 
progressing toward the top at some unspecified future time. 
The petitioner submitted evidence that he is a member of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 
(ASCO), the AGA, the GRG, and the American Medical Association (AMA). The petitioner also 
submitted general information about these organizations, but there is no evidence (such as 
membership bylaws or other official documentation of membership criteria) showing their admission 
requirements. In this case, there is no evidence showing that Mensa, the AACR, the ACP, the 
ASCO, the AGA, the GRG, or the AMA require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in the petitioner's field or an allied one. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classijkation is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary 
translation. 
3 
 For "Biological Scientists," the Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2008-2009 (accessed at 
hrn://~~~.bl~.go~/oco/), states that a "solid record of published research is essential in obtaining a permanent position 
involving basic research." See http:lldata.bls.aovlc~i-bin~print.p~oco/ocosO47.h, accessed on October 23, 2009, copy 
incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
4 
 See httv://www.acponline.ora/membership/tM,es/, accessed on October 23, 2009, copy incorporated into the record of 
proceeding. 
In general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the petitioner 
and, as stated in the regulations, be printed in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media. To qualify as major media, the publication should have significant national or international 
distribution. An alien would not earn acclaim at the national level fiom a local publication. Some 
newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally serve a particular locality but would qualify as 
major media because of significant national distribution, unlike small local community papers.5 
The petitioner initially claimed that his conference presentations met this criterion. The petitioner's 
conference presentations constitute scholarly material prepared by him rather than published 
material authored by another about him in major publications or media. The petitioner's conference 
presentations are more relevant to the "authorship of scholarly articles" criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3)(vi) and will be addressed there. In response to the director's request for evidence, the 
petitioner submitted copies of requests for reprints of his articles as additional evidence for this 
criterion. The plain language of this regulatory criterion requires the submission of "[plublished 
material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media" including "the 
title, date, and author of the material." The reprint requests fiom others in the petitioner's field and his 
conference presentations do not meet the preceding requirements. 
The petitioner also submitted articles that cite to his published and presented work. Regarding the 
scientific articles that merely reference the petitioner's work, we note that the plain language of this 
regulatory criterion requires that the published material be "about the alien." In this case, the articles 
citing the petitioner's work are primarily about the authors' work, not the footnoted material identifying 
the petitioner. With regard to this criterion, a footnoted reference to the alien's work without evaluation 
is of minimal probative value. Further, we note that the articles citing the petitioner's work similarly 
referenced numerous other authors. The submitted citations to the petitioner's work do not discuss 
the merits of his work, his standing in the field, any significant impact that his work has had on the 
field, or any other aspects of his work so as to be considered published material about the petitioner 
as required by this criterion. Instead, these citations are more relevant to the regulatory criterion at 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(vi) and will be addressed there. 
The petitioner submitted an "acknowledgement" at the conclusion of a research article written by his 
superior,and others stating: "We are indebted to 
[the petitioner], MD, and for assistance with patient recruitment, data 
collection, and data entry . . . . " This material only mentions the petitioner's name in passing in a 
brief acknowledgement at the conclusion of the research article. The research article, howeier, is 
not about the petitioner and therefore does not meet the requirements of this criterion. 
The petitioner submitted a June 2008 letter stating that Marquis Who's Who selected his biography 
"for inclusion in the forthcoming 2009 Edition of Who's Who in America." On appeal, the petitioner 
submits a certificate stating that he was included in the 2009 edition and self-serving material about 
5 
 Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. For example, 
an article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax County, Virginia, for 
instance, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
the publication from its internet site. The petitioner also submits a February 2009 letter announcing 
"consideration" of his biographical profile for inclusion in the "2010 Edition of Who's Who in the 
World." The record, however, does not include the page containing the petitioner's biographical 
entry for these editions. The petitioner was selected for and included in these voluminous annual 
directories subsequent to the petition's filing date. A petitioner, however, must establish eligibility at 
the time of filing. 
 8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
Accordingly, the AAO will not consider this evidence in this proceeding. Nevertheless, there is no 
evidence (such as circulation statistics) showing that these biographical directories qualify as 
professional or major trade publications or other major media. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
.Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on apanel, as a judge of the 
work of others in the same or an alliedfield of specification for which classfication is 
sought. 
The petitioner claims to have participated on peer review panels for Cancer, Journal of Medical 
Genetics, New England Journal of Medicine, Clinical Cancer Research, and American Journal of 
Gastroenterology, but the record does not include evidence of his participation originating from these 
journals. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of 
meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 
1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
The petitioner submitted a September 22, 2005 e-mail from - Southern 
Medical Journal, stating: "Many thanks for your letter dated September 16 and the attached CV, 
which looks quite impressive. We are always looking for good reviewers for the Southern Medical 
Journal and I am pleased to welcome you to our team." In response to the director's request for 
evidence, the petitioner submitted a manuscript review request from the Southern Medical Journal 
dated May 30, 2007 and his completed review. The petitioner also submitted a March 14, 2007 
manuscript review request from Gut and his completed review. The director concluded that the 
petitioner's limited participation in the manuscript review process had not set him apart from others in 
his field and was not consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. The director 
specifically noted that the petitioner had not reviewed an unusually large number of articles or served in 
an editorial position for a scientific journal. 
On appeal, counsel argues that the plain language of 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iv) "does not necessarily 
demand a large volume or principal editorial role." The controlling regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3), however, provides that "a petition for an alien of extraordinary ability must be 
accompanied by evidence that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and that his or 
her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." The evidence submitted to meet 
this criterion, or any criterion, must be indicative of or consistent with sustained national or international 
a~claim.~ A lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory definition of 
"extraordinary ability" as "a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). 
Counsel cites Buletini v. INS, 860 F. Supp. 1222 (E.D. Mich. 1994), in which the court held that 
8 C.F.R. tj 204.5@)(3)(iv) had been met by the alien having served as "Chief of the Certification 
Commission" and through his participation on other committees such as his "chairmanship of the 
Scientific Council." Id. at 1231. Counsel argues that the court found this criterion to have "been met 
where the applicant merely served on 'more than one' panel." We find that the present matter is 
distinguishable from Buletini as the petitioner's occasional participation as an ad hoc manuscript 
reviewer has not been shown to be commensurate with serving as "Chief of the Certification 
Commission" or Chairman of the Scientific Council. 
In contrast to the broad precedential authority of the case law of a United States circuit court, the 
AAO is not bound to follow the published decision of a United States district court in cases arising 
within the same district. See Matter of K-S-, 20 I&N Dec. 715 (BIA 1993). The reasoning 
underlying a district judge's decision will be given due consideration when it is properly before the 
AAO; however, the analysis does not have to be followed as a matter of law. Id. at 7 19. 
Regardless, we do not find it violates the reasoning in Buletini, 860 F. Supp. at 123 1, to examine the 
evidence submitted as to whether it is indicative of or inconsistent with national or international 
acclaim. The court in Buletini was concerned that an alien would need to first demonstrate 
"extraordinary ability" in order to meet this criterion. We are not following this "circular exercise" 
that troubled the court. Rather, we are looking at the type of review responsibilities inherent to the 
field and what review responsibilities might be indicative of or at least consistent with national 
a~claim.~ 
Peer review is a routine element of the process by which articles are selected for publication in 
scientific journals. Occasional participation in the peer review process does not automatically 
demonstrate that an individual has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of his 
field. Reviewing manuscripts is recognized as a professional obligation of researchers who publish 
themselves in scientific journals. Normally a journal's editorial staff will enlist the assistance of 
numerous professionals in the field who agree to review submitted papers. It is common for a 
publication to ask several reviewers to review a manuscript and to offer comments. The 
publication's editorial staff may accept or reject any reviewer's comments in determining whether to 
publish or reject submitted papers. Without evidence pre-dating the filing of the petition that sets the 
petitioner apart from others in his field, such as evidence that he has reviewed manuscripts for a 
6 
 We note that although not binding precedent, this interpretation has been upheld in Yasar v. DHS, 2006 WL 778623 *9 
(S.D. Tex. March 24, 2006) and All Pro Cleaning Services v. DOL et al., 2005 WL 4045866 *11 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 26, 
2005). 
7 
 Accord Yasar v. Dep't of Homeland Security, 2006 Westlaw 778623, *9 (S.D. Tex. March 24, 2006) (citing Buletini as an 
example of sufficient judging responsibilities rather than for the proposition that no evaluation of the judging responsibilities 
is permissible). 
journal that credits a small, elite group of referees, received and completed independent requests for 
review from a substantial number of journals, or served in an editorial position for a distinguished 
journal in the same manner as his references,* we cannot conclude that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientzjc, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major signzjcance in thejeld. 
The petitioner submitted several letters of support discussing his original research contributions. We 
cite representative examples here. 
of Medicine at Harvard Medical School and Professor of Clinical Cancer 
Epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health, states: 
[The petitioner] has conducted studies on how the site of the mutations on the APC gene 
affect[s] the clinical presentation of the familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) disease. FAP 
is a syndrome characterized by multiple premalignant colon polyps that progress to colon 
cancer by the age of 20-30 years in the absence of treatment. He identified and described for 
the first time in the medical literature that mutations at specific regions of the gene are 
associated with extracolonic tumors including desmoids, osteomas, liver and thyroid cancers. 
This has led to a much better understanding of the pathogenesis of the disease and help[s] us 
to predict the type of cancers, individuals with different mutations are likely to develop. . . . 
He has also authored another article on how desmoid tumors can predate the development of 
FAP. This not only helps in the earlier recognition of this syndrome, but also in the 
prevention of colon and stomach cancers. 
Hereditary non-polyposis colon cancer (HNPCC) has traditionally been considered as a 
primarily gastrointestinal cancer syndrome associated with very young onset colon 
cancers.. . . [The petitioner] based on his research has been has been [sic] able to point out 
that in more than 50% of the cases an extracolonic cancer, such as endometrial or ovarian 
cancer is the 'sentinel' (or the first cancer) to be identified. This new finding has very 
important implications and helps physicians around the world to identify the syndrome in the 
early stages and in early detection of the associated cancers, which is so vital in cancer 
prevention and management. One of his other articles on HNPCC has identified for the first 
time novel genotype-phenotype associations that helps [sic] in correlating the different gene 
mutations (hMLH1 and hMSH2) and their clinical presentations, which is so important for 
efficient cancer screening. 
University of Michigan Cancer Center, states: 
[The petitioner's] studies on the clinical presentation of the HNPCC syndrome, primarily 
considered a colon cancer predisposition syndrome, have revealed that in more that half of 
8 For exarnple,served as an Associate Editor for Cancer Genetics and Cytogenefics. 
patients the syndrome presents with a cancer outside the gastrointestinal tract, such as uterine 
or ovarian cancer. These findings have broadened our understanding of HNPCC and have 
improved our ability to detect patients with the syndrome when their cancers are at an earlier, 
more curable stage. He has also identified novel correlations between the type of gene 
mutation and the clinical presentation in HNPCC, which has led to the development of more 
cost-effective genetic screening strategies and the recognition of the variety of different 
cancers that patients with these gene mutations can present with. 
[The petitioner's] research on the genotype-phenotype associations in FAP has resulted in the 
novel finding that specific clinical features of patients with FAP are associated with 
mutations in specific areas of the APC gene. This important new information allows us to 
make specific recommendations regarding genetic screening and early cancer detection.. . . 
[The petitioner] also reported that desmoid tumors could occur as the initial presentation of 
FAP, a finding which plays a vital role in earlier detection of the disease. 
[The petitioner] has also studied colon tumors associated with MYH gene mutations. 
Although such mutations were initially reported in individuals with many polyps, [the 
petitioner's] research has shown that such mutations can also be associated with families with 
very few polyps, which offers a new genetic explanation for the development of colon cancer 
in such patients. 
Netherlands Foundation for the Detection of Hereditary Tumors, 
Department of Gastroenterology Leiden University Medical Center, Netherlands, states: 
I am familiar with [the petitioner] through some of his research publications. 
[The petitioner's] work on HNPCC has revealed novel genotype-phenotype correlations that 
sheds light on our understanding of the various clinical presentations associated with 
different genetic mutations in this syndrome and also helps in more efficient cancer screening 
and prevention strategies. 
His other work on HNPCC, which is traditionally considered to be a colon cancer syndrome, 
has demonstrated that in 50% of the cases it can actually present with gynecologic cancers 
such as endometrial and ovarian cancers. This is very important with regards to the early and 
accurate recognition of the syndrome, which is so vital for prevention of cancers not only in 
that individual but also in other at-risk members of their family. 
states: 
I am familiar with [the petitioner's] work through . . . his research articles published in 
medical literature. 
[The petitioner's] work has revealed that . . . [FAP] may actually at first present with other 
tumors . . . . This is very important in recognizing the syndrome promptly . . . . His other 
work on this syndrome has identified that the type of tumors that develop can be related to 
the location of the mutations in the APC gene. This sheds light on the genotype-phenotype 
correlations, which helps us to better understand the molecular mechanisms that underlie this 
disease. 
Mutations in another gene known as the MYH gene have been recently reported to be a cause 
of multiple (1 0- 100) colon polyps. [The petitioner's] work on this syndrome has shown that 
the number of polyps and family history are actually not reliable indicators of the presence of 
such MYH gene mutations. This is very important since it indicates that such mutations 
could be a new genetic mechanism for the occurrence of colon cancer even in individuals 
with only a few polyps. 
an oncologist at Duke University Medical Center, states: 
I have become familiar with [the petitioner's] work in the field of colon cancer through some 
of his publications. 
Hereditary nonpolyposis colon cancer (HNPCC) is an inherited cancer predisposition 
syndrome caused by mutations in the mismatch repair genes MLHl and MSH2 with a very 
high risk of cancer. [The petitioner's] work has demonstrated very novel genotype-phenotype 
correlations and has shown that the type of cancer individuals develop is actually related to 
the type of gene affected. This sheds light on the complex genetic mechanisms that underlie 
the pathogenesis of this disease. . . . In addition, his other work on this syndrome has shown 
that in many cases it can actually present initially with extra-colonic cancers such as 
gynecologic malignancies. This is very important since HNPCC is usually considered a colon 
cancer syndrome, and highlights that this syndrome should be considered as part of the 
differential diagnosis even in patients presenting with other cancers. 
[The petitioner's] studies on FAP have been able to show that the type of cancers individuals 
develop can be related to the site of the mutation on the gene. This helps us to understand the 
intricate genetic pathways involved in this syndrome that causes several cancers as early as in 
the second or third decade of life . . . . Furthermore, his other work on this syndrome has 
been able to demonstrate that in many cases, families with this disease may actually present 
at first with other cancers such as desmoids & comprehensive evaluation would be necessary 
to identify this underlying syndrome. This is very important to be able to recognize the 
disease early and institute appropriate cancer prevention interventions. 
In recent years, mutations in the MYH gene have also been reported to cause an attenuated 
FAP syndrome with up to a hundred colon polyps. [The petitioner's] work on this has 
demonstrated that the polyp number is not a reliable predictor of this syndrome and some 
patients with even a few polyps may actually harbor this gene mutation. This has important 
implications as the underlying cause of cancer even in patients with just a few adenomas. 
In support of the preceding experts' statements, the petitioner submitted documentation showing a 
significant amount of cites to his published findings. These citations are solid evidence that others in 
the field have been influenced by the petitioner's work and are familiar with it. This evidence 
corroborates the independent experts' statements that the petitioner has made original contributions 
of major significance in his field. The record reflects that the petitioner's contributions are important 
not only to the institutions where he has worked, but throughout the greater field as well. Leading 
researchers from around the world have acknowledged the value of the petitioner's work and its 
major significance in the field. Accordingly, the petitioner has established that he meets this 
criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the Jield, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of his authorship of articles in publications such as Obstetrics & 
Gynecology, Familial Cancer, and Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. The petitioner also 
submitted abstracts and other material showing that his work was presented at various scientific and 
medical conferences. As discussed previously, the record also includes evidence of a significant 
amount of articles that cite to his work. Accordingly, the petitioner has established that he meets this 
criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the jield at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 
The petitioner asserts that his work has been displayed at scientific conferences. The petitioner's 
field, however, is not in the arts. The plain language of this regulatory criterion indicates that it is 
intended for visual artists (such as sculptors and painters) rather than for biomedical researchers such 
as the petitioner. The ten criteria in the regulations are designed to cover different areas; not every 
criterion will apply to every occupation. The petitioner's conference presentations are more relevant 
to the "authorship of scholarly articles" criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(vi), a criterion that has 
already been met. Nevertheless, in the fields of science and medicine, acclaim is generally not 
established by the mere act of presenting one's work at a conference or symposium along with 
dozens of other participants. Nothing in the record indicates that the presentation of one's work is 
unusual in the petitioner's field or that an invitation to make a presentation at the venues where the 
petitioner's work appeared was a privilege extended to only a few top researchers. Many 
professional fields regularly hold conferences and symposia to present new work, discuss new 
findings, and to network with other professionals. These conferences are promoted and sponsored 
' 
 by professional associations, businesses, educational institutions, and government agencies. Such 
events are not artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
At issue for this criterion are the position the petitioner was selected to fill and the reputation of the 
entity that selected him. In other words, the position must be of such significance that the alien's 
selection to fill the position is in itself indicative of or consistent with national or international acclaim. 
The petitioner submitted a letter of support fiom discussing the petitioner's research 
~roiects. In response to the director's reauest for evidence, the petitioner submitted an August 18, 2008 
A d - 
letter fiom extehding an offer fir thebetitioner's continued employmeit as a 
"Senior Research Scientist." On appeal, counsel argues that the petitioner has performed in a leading or 
critical role for the DFCI. 
 We agree with counsel that the DFCI has a distinguished reputation. 
However, while the petitioner has performed admirably on the research projects to which he was 
assigned, there is no evidence showing that his role as a Senior Research Scientist was leading or 
critical for the DFCI. For example, the petitioner has not submitted an organizational chart or other 
similar evidence showing where his position falls within the DFCI's organizational hierarchy. The 
letter of support from and the other evidence submitted does not demonstrate how the 
petitioner's role differentiated him from the other researchers in his department, let alone the DFCI's 
tenured faculty and princi a1 investi ators. Rather, a comparison of the petitioner's position with that 
of his superiors (such as 
 and 
 and of the other individuals offering letters of support 
indicates that the very top of his field is a level above his present level of achievement. For instance, 
there is no indication that the petitioner has served as a principal investigator and initiated his own 
research projects. The documentation submitted by the petitioner does not establish that he was 
responsible for the DFCI's success or standing to a degree consistent with the meaning of "leading or 
critical role" and indicative of sustained national or international acclaim. Accordingly, the petitioner 
has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signijtcantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. 
The August 18, 2008 letter fromtates that the petitioner's "salary will be $35,000 
per year" at the DFCI. This salary offer post-dates the filing of the petition. A petitioner, however, 
must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 
I&N Dec. at 49. Accordingly, the AAO will not consider this evidence in this proceeding. 
Nevertheless, the plain language of this criterion requires the petitioner to submit evidence of a high 
salary "in relation to others in the field." The petitioner offers no basis for comparison showing that 
his $35,000 salary is significantly high in relation to others in his field. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
In this case, we find that the petitioner meets only two regulatory criteria, three of which are required 
to establish eligibility. 
 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). We concur with the director's finding that the 
petitioner has failed to demonstrate his receipt of a major internationally recognized award, or that 
he meets at least three of the criteria that must be satisfied to establish the national or international 
acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The 
conclusion we reach by considering the evidence to meet each criterion separately is consistent with 
a review of the evidence in the aggregate. Even in the aggregate, the evidence does not distinguish 
the petitioner as one of the small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(2). 
While USCIS has approved prior 0-1 nonimmigrant visa petitions filed on behalf of the petitioner, 
these prior approvals do not preclude USCIS from denying an immigrant visa petition based on a 
different, if similarly phrased standard. Each case must decided on a case-by-case basis on the evidence 
of record. It must be noted that many 1-140 immigrant petitions are denied after USCIS approves 
prior nonimmigrant petitions. See, e.g., Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 
2003); IKEA US v. US Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Brothers Co. Ltd. v. 
Suva, 724 F. Supp. 1103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989). Because USCIS spends less time reviewing 1-129 
nonimmigrant petitions than 1-140 immigrant petitions, some nonimmigrant petitions are simply 
approved in error. Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d at 29-30; see also Texas A&M 
Univ. v. Upchurch, 99 Fed. Appx. 556,2004 WL 1240482 (5th Cir. 2004) (finding that prior approvals 
do not preclude USCIS from denying an extension of the original visa based on a reassessment of 
the alien's qualifications). 
The AAO is not required to approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not been 
demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See, e.g., Matter of 
Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593,597 (Comm. 1988). It would be absurd to suggest 
that USCIS or any agency must treat acknowledged errors as binding precedent. Sussex Engg. Ltd. v. 
Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1 988). 
Furthermore, the AAO's authority over the service centers is comparable to the relationship between a 
court of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director has approved a nonimmigrant 
petition on behalf of the alien, the AAO would not be bound to follow the contradictory decision of a 
service center. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 2000 WL 282785 (E.D. La.), afd, 248 F.3d 
1 139 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct 5 1 (2001). 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself to such an extent 
that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the 
small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's 
achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field at a national or international 
level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Act and the petition may not be approved. 
The AAO maintains plenary power to review each appeal on a de novo basis. 5 U.S.C. 5 557(b) ("On 
appeal from or review of the initial decision, the agency has all the powers which it would have in 
making the initial decision except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule."); see also Janka v. 
US. Dept. of Transp., NTSB, 925 F.2d 1 147, 1 149 (9th Cir. 1991). The AAO's de novo authority 
has been long recognized by the federal courts. See, e.g., Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d 
Cir. 1989). 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely 
with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 136 1. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.