dismissed EB-1A Case: Cell Biology

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
c n ne .: -c5 ,.9 r:c,"~e-j 
lk:?.r!.; ;; -9 '.,,? :,\..* I,<.," " - 
*m,.j,c,*..? ,-,I,.- *;L! iJi-,vp.E?:l:2d 
F.\, . .,.i :... ..li'.-- ,, 
U. S. Citizenship 
i117JL;;i~;i c;.f ;jL:,;b;ii-?,! pr~~~icy 
 and Immigration 
Services 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
LIN 07 195 50707 
Date: FEB 2 3 2009 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Imgration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 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. 9 103.5 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. 9 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
w 
2 John F. Grissom, Acting Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska 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)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 9 1 153(b)(l)(A). The 
director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim 
necessary to qualifjr for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief and a new reference letter. For the reasons discussed below, while 
we concur with counsel that the evidence relating to the petitioner's contributions and published articles 
carries more evidentiary weight than acknowledged by the director, we uphold the director's ultimate 
decision that the petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility for this exclusive classification. As 
explained at the end of our decision, our analysis of the criteria individually is consistent with an 
evaluation of the evidence in the aggregate. We note that some of counsel's criticisms of the director's 
decision are unfounded. For example, while counsel asserts that the director's characterization of the 
petitioner as a researcher ignores his position as an "instructor," the faculty page for the Cell Biology 
department where the petitioner works, submitted by the petitioner in support of the petition, lists 
several instructors, including the petitioner, under "research faculty." 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(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. 
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, 60898-9 (Nov. 29, 
1991). As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability'' means a level of expertise indicating 
Page 3 
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. 8 204.5(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. 8 204.5(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. 
According to Part 6 of the petition, this petition seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with 
extraordinary ability as a research instructor/scientist. The petitioner received his Ph.D. from Jadavpur 
University in India in 1995 and subsequently worked as a postdoctoral fellow in the Department of 
Biochemistry at the University of   el hi. The petitioner then worked as a senior scientist in the 
~iotechnolob Laboratory of the Indian National Dairy Development Board. At the time of filing, the 
petitioner was working as an instructor in the laboratory of at the University of 
Massachusetts. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international 
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. The petitioner has submitted evidence that, he claims, meets the 
following criteria.' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
Initially, the petitioner asserted that his faculty and fellowship appointments and his merit scholarship 
serve to meet this criterion. The director's request for additional evidence, dated July 9, 2007, noted 
that fellowships and scholarships are issued to support future academic work or research. In response, 
the petitioner affirmed the significance of his scholarships, fellowships and faculty appointments. The 
petitioner did not submit any evidence to support his assertions. Going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter of Sofici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comrn'r. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft 
of Califarnia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l. Cornrn'r. 1972)). 
The director concluded that while the fellowships and scholarships were from distinguished 
institutions, they could not serve to meet this criterion because "veterans" in the field did not compete 
for such appointments. Counsel does not challenge this conclusion on appeal other than to assert, when 
discussing the petitioner's articles, that he did "also win 'prizes."' Counsel, however, does not identify 
these "prizes" or explain how they are nationally or internationally recognized. 
I 
 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
Page 4 
The petitioner's fellowships are essentially job offers. A job offer, even a competitive job offer from a 
prestigious institution, is not an award or prize. Regarding the petitioner's scholarship, academic study 
is not a field of endeavor, but training for a future field of endeavor. As such, academic scholarships 
and student awards cannot be considered prizes or awards in the petitioner's field of endeavor. 
Moreover, competition for scholarships is limited to other students. Experienced experts in the field 
are not seeking scholarships. Similarly, experienced experts do not compete for fellowships and 
competitive "junior faculty" appointments as the petitioner himself categorized his instructor 
position in his initial cover letter. Thus, they cannot establish that a petitioner is one of the very few 
at the top of his field. 
Significantly, this office has held, in a precedent decision involving a lesser classification than the one 
sought in this matter, that academic performance, measured by such criteria as grade point average, is 
not a specific prior achievement that establishes the alien's ability to benefit the national interest. 
Matter of New York State Dep 't. of Transp., 22 I&N Dec. 21 5, 21 9, n.6 (Comm'r. 1998). Thus, 
scholarships based on academic performance are certainly not comparable to the awards criterion set 
forth at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(i), designed to demonstrate an alien's eligibility for this more 
exclusive classification. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not demonstrated that he meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the j'ield for which classij?cation is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national 
or international experts in their disciplines orjields. 
The petitioner initially submitted evidence of his membership in the American Society of Bone and 
Mineral Research (ASBMR) and his application for associate membership in the Orthopaedic Research 
Society (ORS). In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted a 
letter from ABMR indicating that the petitioner has met the qualifications for an "in-training" 
membership and that the society is the "world's largest society of basic scientists, clinicians and nurse 
practitioners research skeletal biology and pathology." The petitioner also notes that he has presented 
his work at ASBMR conferences. In addition, the petitioner submitted a letter from ORS indicating 
that he has been a member since 2007 and that members must have attended one ORS meeting, 
published two peer-reviewed papers or presentations of a paper at a meeting and received two letters of 
recommendation. 
The director concluded that the petitioner had not demonstrated that ASBMR or ORS requires 
outstanding achievements of their members. Counsel does not challenge this conclusion on appeal. 
We will consider the petitioner's presentations under the scholarly articles criterion, set forth at 
8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3)(vi), below. At issue for ths criterion are whether the petitioner is a member of 
an association and whether the associations require outstanding achievements as judged by recognized 
national or international experts. ASBMR boasts that it is the world's largest society related to skeletal 
Page 5 
biology and pathology. Such a claim is not consistent with the type of exclusive membership that 
might serve to meet this criterion. Regardless, the petitioner has not submitted evidence of ASBMR's 
official membership requirements. 
The petitioner has not demonstrated that he was a member of ORS as of the date of filing, the date as of 
which the petitioner must establish eligibility. See 8 C.F.R. $8 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 
14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l. Comm'r. 1971). Regardless, the ORS letter provides the membership 
requirements for the society, none of which are outstanding in the petitioner's field. The letter also 
does not suggest that nationally or internationally recognized experts judge the membership 
qualifications of prospective members. 
In light of the above, 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 Jield for which classijcation is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
The petitioner has submitted evidence that he is widely and frequently cited and that his work has been 
favorably referenced in review articles and a press release from his employer. The petitioner's 1998 
article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) was covered by Gene Therapy 
Weekly, although the article does not mention the petitioner by name. 
The director noted in his request for additional evidence that citations cannot serve to meet this 
criterion. The director does not specifically address this criterion in his final decision. Counsel does 
not assert that the petitioner meets this criterion on appeal. 
While the evidence discussed above is significant and will be considered as it relates to the significance 
of the petitioner's contributions and scholarly articles, it cannot serve to meet this criterion. The 
articles that cite the petitioner's work are primarily about the author's work or review a broad area of 
research. As stated above, the article in Gene Therapy Weekly does not even mention the petitioner by 
name. Thus, it cannot be considered to be "about" the petitioner relating to his work. Finally, a press 
release from the petitioner's employer cannot serve to meet this criterion as it is not independent 
journalistic coverage of the petitioner relating to his work. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meet this criterion. 
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 alliedfield of speclJication for which classijcation is sought. 
We note at the outset that simply submitting evidence that relates to a given criterion is insufficient. 
The quality and significance of the evidence must be analyzed. In order to satis@ a given criterion, the 
evidence must be indicative of or consistent with national or international acclaim if that statutory 
Page 6 
standard is to have any meaning. Evidence that does not set the petitioner apart from most other 
members of the field, including experienced members of the field, is insufficient. In other words, we 
will not narrow the petitioner's field to junior faculty members. 
The petitioner initially submitted a reviewing history for Cancer Research. It is not apparent from this 
document that the listed manuscript reviews were completed by the petitioner. The petitioner also 
submitted a self-serving list of reviewed manuscripts for the Journal of Cellular Biochemistry and the 
Journal of Cellular Physiology. The petitioner submitted a manuscript review request from Cancer 
Research. The request asks that if the petitioner is unable to complete the review that he suggest "any 
suitable reviewers." Finally, the petitioner submitted several informal letters from- and 
advising that-' had asked that the petitioner review various manuscripts for 
publication in a variety of journals including PNAS and Nature/Oncogene. None of the letters are 
signed. 
As stated above. at the time of filing the ~etitioner was working at the Universitv of Massachusetts in 
the laboratory ofv 
submitted letters from I 
Massachusetts. 
notes that he is an executive editor for several journals and a senior editor for Cancer 
Research. He asserts that he relies heavily on the petitioner's expert judgment and attests to the 
importance of the petitioner's role as a reviewer. He concludes that the petitioner "has been chosen 
from a field of thousands of potential reviewers to serve in this role." asserts that he 
handles more than 100-200 manuscripts per year and selects "only the very best reviewers that can 
understand both the technical and theoretical underpinnings of molecular and cellular research.'- 
affirms that he has frequently consulted with the petitioner and selected him as a reviewer. 
The director concluded that the petitioner's participation in the peer review process does not set him 
apart from other researchers in his field. On appeal, counsel erroneously asserts that "no mention was 
made of this category." Counsel notes that the petitioner has reviewed manuscripts for distinguished 
journals and concludes that it is "self evident" that reviewing for any journal requires expertise in the 
field. Counsel claims to have had clients approved for this classification who have only reviewed for 
half the number of 'ournals. Finally, counsel asserts that the director must not have read the letters 
from and - 
Counsel cites no precedent decision or other binding legal authority, and we know of none, finding that 
any peer-review for any journal qualifies an alien under this criterion. That counsel may have had 
clients approved with fewer reviews is not dispositive. While 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(c) provides that AAO 
precedent decisions are binding on all USCIS employees in the administration of the Act, 
unpublished decisions are not similarly binding. Moreover, 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'r. 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 (1988). 
It is not self evident to us that any reviewer must be presumed to meet this criterion. Even assuming 
that one must be an "expert" to participate as a peer reviewer, we do not question that the petitioner is 
an expert in his field such that he has a high degree of skill in or knowledge of his field. See Webster's 
New College Dictionary 403 (3d ed. 2008) (definition of "expert"). The statute, however, does not 
require only that the petitioner be an expert, but that he also enjoy sustained national or international 
acclaim. Thus, any evidence submitted to meet this criterion must be indicative of or consistent with 
recognition beyond the petitioner's immediate circle of colleagues at the University of Massachusetts. 
While the petitioner has completed reviews for several journals, the requests have come fi-om his own 
supervisor and another colleague at the University of Massachusetts. Being requested to review an 
article by a close colleague is not evidence of national or international acclaim. In addition, the fact that 
the petitioner was hired to work for and with professors who are also distinguished journal editors is 
not necessarily an indication of the petitioner's own acclaim. The petitioner cannot demonstrate his 
own national or international acclaim by association. 
We acknowledge the implication in the letters from 
 andhat the choice of a 
manuscript reviewer is a selective process. 
 concedes, however, that he alone oversees 
between 100 and 200 manuscripts that must be reviewed and he is only one editor. The need for a large 
number of reviewers in the field is also apparent fi-om the request from Cancer Research which asks 
the petitioner to suggest "any suitable reviewers" if he is unable to complete the review. The number of 
~ - 
manuscripts that are submitted to journals, even those just within the petitioner's field, can be 
extrapolated from this evidence to be quite large. All of these manuscripts must be reviewed by 
independent reviewers to be considered peer-reviewed. Neither nor mprovides 
the total number of reviewers utilized by these journals annually and the record does not contain an 
official list of reviewers for these journals. while such information was not specifically requested, it 
bears emphasis that the information in the record is consistent with peer-reviewed journals requiring a 
large number of reviewers and nothing in the record suggests otherwise. 
We cannot ignore that scientific journals are peer reviewed and rely on many scientists to review 
submitted manuscripts. Thus, peer review is routine in the field and not necessarily indicative of or 
consistent with national or international acclaim. Without evidence that sets the petitioner apart from 
others in his field, such as evidence that he has reviewed unusually large number of articles, received 
independent requests from a substantial number of journals, or served in an editorial position for a 
distinguished journal, we cannot conclude that the petitioner meets this criterion. Even assuming that 
the petitioner has reviewed an unusually large number of articles, as stated above, the requests in the 
record appear to all originate from his own supervisor and another close colleague at the same 
institution. Thus, this evidence cannot demonstrate the petitioner's recognition beyond his own 
department at the University of Massachusetts. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signzficance in the$eld. 
The director did not specifically address this criterion in the final denial. On appeal, counsel notes the 
number of published articles authored by the petitioner, the distinguished nature of the publications in 
which they appear and the number of citations. We will address the relevant evidence in detail. 
As stated above, the petitioner has worked in both India and the United States. His research in both 
countries has been published in prestigious journals including Nature (a letter) and PNAS. 
of the Department of Biochemistry at the University of Delhi, discusses the 
petitioner's work at that institution. Specifically, the petitioner worked on using engineered Sendai 
virus particles to deliver thera eutic genes to mouse tissue and the role of a host protein in virus-host 
fusion during infection. hdoes not discuss the impact of this work, but the record contains 
evidence that it was published in PNAS and 
 22 times. In addition, Gene Therapy Weekly 
published an article reporting the results. 
 further asserts that at the National Dairy 
Development Board in India, the petitioner 
 e development of a recombinant vaccine for 
hemorrhagic fever in animals. 
 does not, however, discuss whether this work was success~l 
and whether it impacted the field. 
affirms that he recruited the petitioner to the University of Massachusetts based on his work 
in India. then discusses the petitioner's work at the University of Massachusetts as "a 
postdoctoral fellow and instructor." specifically, explains: 
[The petitioner] discovered lineage-specific transcript control of ribosomal RNA genes 
by the phenotype specific Rum2 regulatory protein. He established that homeodomain 
proteins HoxalO and D1x3 are critical mediators of bone cell differentiation. [The 
petitioner] established the role of mesh-less (Msx), distal-less (Dlx) homeodomain 
proteins in the regulation of bone specific gene transcription. He has made several 
contributions to defining remodeling events that are functionally linked to confirmation 
and activity of the skeletal Runx2 gene promoter. He established the lineage specific 
transcriptional control of ribosomal RNA genes by the Rum2 transcription factor. The 
broad-based relevance of [the petitioner's] research is documented by publication of his 
discovery that Runx transcription factors control cell fate and lineage commitment in 
the top tier journal Nature. 
a professor at the University of Massachusetts, a member of the National Academy of 
Sciences and a Nobel laureate, provides similar information. 
Page 9 
of the Department of Molecular Virology, Immunology and Medical 
Genetics at The Oh10 State University and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, explains 
that he collaborates with the petition& on research to uncover the molecular mechanism of the WWOX 
in bone tissues. 
 asserts that the petitioner was "instrumental" in 
further asserts that the petitioner's work with the Rum2 regulatory protein has 
defining "the chromatin remodeling events that are hnctionally linked to the 
activation of the skeletal Oxteocalcin and Rum2 gene." 
r of Bone and Mineral Diseases at Washington University in St. Louis, 
characterizes the petitioner's work in laboratory as "spectacular." further asserts 
that the petitioner's work with Rum will provide useful novel therapeutic strateges to address unrnet 
clinical needs in skeletal medicine. 
Michigan School of Dentistry, asserts that the petitioner's "hndarnental discoveries have the potential 
to profoundly affect medical science" by identifying "several potential new therapeutic targets for 
treating osteoporosis." 
Finally, 
 a professor at the University of Barcelona, asserts that the petitioner was the 
first to adant techniaues to look at chromatin rearrangements in bone-s~ecific ~romoters. which has 
U 
been inst-ental in helping scientists look at new transcriptional t&ets. '~r. affirms 
following the petitioner's work since 2001. 
The letters detail the originality and potential benefits of the petitioner's work. While more detail of 
how the petitioner's work has already impacted the field would have bolstered the petitioner's claim to 
meet this criterion, the citation evidence in this matter is strongly consistent with such an impact. 
A 1992 article by the petitioner has been cited 103 times. The petitioner had yet to receive his Ph.D. as 
of that date and the -record lacks letters fi-om the senior author, 
 , explaining the 
petitioner's role in this research. That said, several of the petitioner'shave been cited 
dozens of times each. The Faculty of 1000, an online service in which approximately 5,000 leading 
researchers highlight and evaluate important articles, indicates that the petitioner's 2007 letter in Nature 
"sheds new light on the function of~um2, a key transcription factor in the regulation of osteoblast 
differentiation." 
In light of the record in the aggregate, we are satisfied that the petitioner meets 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 record contains evidence of 16 published articles and several conference presentations. The 
director determined that the petitioner's publication record did not set him apart from others in the field. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that being published in Nature and having over 200 citations in the 
aggregate sets the petitioner apart from others in the field. 
An analysis as to whether the petitioner's publication record sets him apart from others in the field is 
appropriate. Moreover, more persuasive than the prestige of the journal is the impact of the actual 
article. That said, as discussed above, the petitioner is widely and frequently cited on a consistent basis. 
The director did not explain why the citations were not considered as evidence that might demonstrate 
the significance of the petitioner's publication re~ord.~ Thus, we are persuaded that the petitioner meets 
this criterion. 
Evidence ofthe display of the alien's work in thejeld at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
The petitioner initially asserted that his conference presentations serve to meet this criterion. In the 
director's request for additional evidence, the director noted that this criterion only applies to the arts. 
That conclusion has not been contested and we concur with the director that this criterion does not 
apply to the petitioner's field. Rather, his conference presentations are more comparable to published 
articles and, thus, have been considered above pursuant to the scholarly articles criterion set forth at 
8 C.F.R. 3 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner claims to have played a leading or critical role for the University of Delhi by mentoring 
students and the University of Massachusetts by mentoring students and working on grant-sponsored 
research. The wetitioner submitted a student wroiect rewort submitted to the Worcester Polytechnic 
Institute listing 
 at the University of Massachusetts as the major advisor and the detitioner 
as a co-advisor. The acknowledgements indicate that the student worked in s laboratory and 
that the petitioner was his "boss." The petitioner submitted the acknowledgements from another 
student project report naming him as a "valuable resource and 
 in the lab." Finally, 
, who performed his "predoctoral research" in 
 s laboratory, discusses 
how the petitioner served as a mentor. 
In his request for additional evidence, the director concluded that mentoring undergraduate and doctoral 
students in the laboratow where he was working; could not set him a~art from others in the field. In 
- 
response, the petitioner submitted a letter from a professor at the University of 
Massachusetts. discusses how the petitioner would assist other members of the laboratory, 
including new investigators and undergraduate students. She asserts that the petitioner "has been a 
leader in the lab and department in terms of organization and updating equipment and teaching other 
laboratories in the best approaches [sic] for obtaining high quality results." 
2 
 For example, self-citations by the alien or his coauthors are not evidence that the work is influential. While 
the record reveals that some of the citations, as can be expected, are self-citations, a significant number of the 
citations are from independent sources. 
Page 1 I 
The director did not specifically address this criterion. On appeal, counsel asserts that the letter from 
as sufficient to meet this criterion. The petitioner submits a new letter from 
asserting that the petitioner "is playing a leading and key role in my laboratory." 
We do not question credibility or sincerity. But whether onsiders the petitioner's 
contributions sufficient to warrant the characterization "leading and key role" is not relevant to this 
criterion. We acknowledge that the petitioner has contributed t research and, in fact, the 
field. Thus, we concluded that the petitioner meets the contributions criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3)(v). At issue for this criterion, however, are the position (job title) the petitioner was 
selected to fill and the reputation of the entity that selected him. In other words, the position (job title) 
must be of such significance to the distinguished institution that the very selection of the alien to fill the 
position, regardless of how he subsequently contributed to the institution while in that role, is indicative 
of or consistent with national or international acclaim. 
We do not question the reputation of the University of Massachusetts. At issue is the role the university 
hired the petitioner to fill. The petitioner is an instructor. He characterizes the role as "junior faculty." 
He is not the director of a research center or the head of a department or even the principal investigator 
on a grant, although we do not mean to imply that every principal investigator able to secure funding 
meets this criterion. 
We do not contest that the petitioner, since being hired, has impressedand contributes to the 
progress of his laboratory. As stated above, we have already considered the petitioner's research 
contributions. In considering eligibility under this criterion, we are not persuaded that being hired as an 
instructor, even in the laboratory of an esteemed member of the field, is indicative of or consistent with 
national or international acclaim. 
Finally, 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 has risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor. The petitioner, a junior faculty member, relies on his publication and citation record; the 
praise of his colleagues and the willingness of his superiors, editors of distinguished journals, to 
forward manuscript reviews to him. While this may distinguish him from other instructors, we will not 
narrow his field to others with his level of training and experience. As stated above, the record contains 
letters from members of the National Academy of Sciences, a Nobel laureate, journal editors, and the 
directors of research centers. Thus, it appears that the highest level of the petitioner's field is far above 
the level he has attained. 
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 has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself as an 
acadmic researcher 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 
indicates that the petitioner shows talent as a junior faculty member, but is not persuasive that the 
petitioner's achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field. 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 burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.