dismissed EB-1A Case: Chemistry

U.S. Department of liomeland Security 
U.S. Cilizenshlo and lrnrnieration Services 
identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
u 
O/jice qfAdminisrrnlive Appeals MS 2090 
Washineton. DC 20529-2090 - 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: AUG 1 9 2010 
LIN 09 039 50936 
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: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Ofice in your case. All of the 
documents related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please 
be advised that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. 
The specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5. 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. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires that any motion must 
be filed within 30 days ofthe decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
&-(- & 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
Nebraska Service Center, on August 14,2009, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office 
(AAO) 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. § 1153(b)(l)(A), as an 
alien of extraordinary ability as a chemistry researcher. The director determined that the 
petitioner had not established the requisite extraordinary ability and failed to submit extensive 
documentation of her sustained national or international acclaim. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the 
statute that the petitioner demonstrate "sustained national or international acclaim" and present 
"extensive documentation" of his or her achievements. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act 
and 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) states that an 
alien can establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time 
achievement, specifically a major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such 
an award, the regulation outlines ten categories of specific evidence. 8 C.F.R. $5 204.5(h)(3)(i) 
through (x). The petitioner must submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten 
regulatory categories of evidence to establish the basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, counsel claims that the petitioner meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 
C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
I. Law 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified 
immigrants who are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) 
through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this 
subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, 
arts, education, business, or athletics which has been 
demonstrated by sustained national or intemational 
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 
Page 3 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will 
substantially benefit prospectively the United States. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization 
Service (INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for 
individuals seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 10ISt Cong., 2d 
Sess. 59 (1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897,60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). The term "extraordinary ability" 
refers only to those individuals in that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the 
field of endeavor. Id. and 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate his or her sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be 
established either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international 
recognized award) or through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the 
following ten categories of evidence. 
(i) Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor; 
(ii) Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, 
as judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or 
fields; 
(iii) Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is 
sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and 
any necessary translation; 
(iv) Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge 
of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which 
classification is sought; 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major significance in the field; 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media; 
(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases: 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for 
organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation; 
Page 4 
(ix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field; or 
(x) Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a 
petition filed under this classification Although 
the court u~held the AAO's decision to denv the oetition. the court took issue with the AAO's 
evaluation of evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion.' With respect to the criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. $5 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised 
legitimate concerns about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, 
those concerns should have been raised in a subsequent "final merits determination." Id. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the 
petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed 
to satisfy the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." Id. at 
1122 (citing to 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)). The court also explained the "final merits determination" as 
the corollary to this procedure: 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, USCIS determines whether the 
evidence demonstrates both a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one 
of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor," 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5@)(2), and "that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of 
expertise." 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). Only aliens whose achievements have garnered 
"sustained national or international acclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary 
ability" visa. 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A)(i). 
Id. at 1119. 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then 
considered in the context of a final merits determination. In reviewing Service Center decisions, the 
AAO will apply the test set forth in Kazarian. As the AAO maintains de novo review, the AAO 
will conduct a new analysis if the director reached his or her conclusion by using a one-step analysis 
rather than the two-step analysis dictated by the Kazarian court. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. 
United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), afd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); 
see also Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting that the AAO conducts 
appellate review on a de novo basis). 
I Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel, substantive, or evidentiary requirements 
beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Page 5 
11. Analysis 
A. Evidentiay Criteria 
This petition, filed on November 26, 2008, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with 
extraordinary ability as a chemistry researcher. The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining 
to the following criteria under 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of 
the work of others in the same or an allied field of speczjcation for which 
classz~cation is sought. 
The director determined that the petitioner's documentary evidence reflecting her peer reviews 
for three journals failed to establish eligibility for this criterion. The plain language of the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iv) requires "[elvidence of the alien's participation, either 
individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of 
specification for which classification is sought." -596 F.3d at 1121-22, the 
petitioner submitted sufficient documentation esta is ng at s e meets the plain language of the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iv). Therefore, we withdraw the findings of the director for 
this criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, or business-related 
contributions of a major significance in the field. 
At the time of the original filing of the petition, counsel claimed the petitioner's eligibility for 
this criterion by stating: 
[The petitioner] has carried out highly important research in chemistry that has 
focused on two principal areas, phosphorous chemistry and carbon nanotubes. 
Phosphorous chemistry addresses the development of phosphorous compounds, 
which are important to the development of new drugs, herbicides, and pesticides. 
Carbon nanotubes are used in materials science and nanotechnology. 
In support of the petitioner's eligibility, the petitioner submitted numerous recommendation 
letters. We cite representative examples below. 
The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in tlus decision. 
[The petitioner] has developed a selective method for converting 2(5H)-furanones 
to phosphorylated biologically active compounds, which is of interest to the 
pharmaceutical and agrochemical industries. 
 I also would highly rate her 
extensive work in the design and synthesis of new fluorinated phosphorous 
compounds. This work has increased the availability of fluorine-containing and 
has sparked the attention of drug, agrochemical and polymer producers. 
In 2005 she reported the discovery of an intramolecular hydrophosphination 
reaction of a phosphirene ring. The chiral heterocyclic phosphorous compounds 
play a pivotal role as ligands and organocatalysts in asymmetric reactions. The 
constant search for more efficient ligands led transition metal chemists to 
investigate the potential of phosphorous heterocycles in coordination chemistry 
and catalysis. [The petitioner] reported the synthesis of a novel rigid chelating 
phosphorous ligand by trapping transient terminal phosphinidene molybdenum 
pentacarbonyl complex with an acetylenic alcohol. This research shed light into 
the molecular mechanism of this reaction and explored a new reaction in the 
chemistry of phosphirenes. The intramolecular hydrophosphiliation reaction of a 
ohosohirene ring was demonstrated for the first time in the literature. These 
L L d 
achicvemcnts ovcn tnanv avcnucs for rcsc~rch. including thc investigation of the 
cis-I,?-bis- 
(ph0sphino)ethenes. which are good ligands in catalysis. Before the discovery of 
hydrosphination reaction of phosphirenes there was no other convenicnt methods 
available to synthesize such ty& of rigid ligands in practical terms. A more 
widespread use of these original structures is likely in the near future. 
In 2006 [the petitioner] published in Organometallics a paper, which made 
significant contribution to the chemistry of monovalent phosphorous P(I) 
oxidation state. For phosphorous chemists this was a highlight of the year. This 
work extends her previous studies on traditionally, organophosphorous chemistry 
organized around the interconversion between the P(II1) and P(V) oxidation 
states. The proposed synthetic approach [is] simple and versatile and it has many 
interesting synthetic applications around P(1) species. The ability to generate free 
phosphinidenes will enable fundamental studies to explore molecular structure, 
bonding and reactivity. This made possible to study the chemistry of the elusive 
P(I), which was a longstanding issue in the organophosphorus chemistry. 
Page 7 
During my research stay at [University of California], I had the opportunity to 
appreciate that [the petitioner] is one of the most brilliant and successful 
scientist[s] I have met and worked with. She works intelligently and actively with 
very original and bright ideas that she able to develop. She has a strong 
background, a wide research experience and has been active in many scientific 
areas. She started her career in the chemistry of phosphorus-carbon heterocycles 
and did the fundamental work in the desim. svnthesis and characterization of new -. < 
materials. Currently, [the petitioner] is working on the chemical functionalization 
of carbon nanotubes, studies of their processability and their incorporation in 
polymers. All these works have been extraordinary and have made invaluable 
contributions, such as bioactive polyfunctional phosphorylated heterocycles for 
catalysis and medicine; the functionalized carbon based nanomaterials in sensor 
technology and biomedicine. 
In recent years [the petitioner] has worked in two distinct areas: (1) phosphorous 
chemistry; (2) carbon nanotubes. Her work in phosphorus chemistry, in particular 
new chelating phosphorous ligands, and modified oligonucleotides and natural 
phosphates, is outstanding and has been published in the premier peer reviewed 
chemical journals. Such novel phosphorous compounds are of importance in the 
pharmaceutical and agrochemical industries for the preparation of drugs, 
herbicides and pesticides. 
[The petitioner] is a talented scientist and by [2006] she already had made 
significant contributions. Her research work, which is situated at the interface 
between biochemistry, organophosphorus and transition metal chemistry, is 
extremely important and substantially benefits the United States. [The petitioner] 
has provided highly significant insights in the chemistry of free phosphinidenes 
and her approach could extend the scope of phosphinidene chemistry and can 
generate numerous synthetic applications in organophosphorus chemistry. 
[The petitioner's] main contributions in my research group lie in the development 
of novel chemically functionalized single-walled carbon nanotubes, which are 
amenable to processing, purification and separation. The use of traditional 
chemical and physical techniques for the characterization of these novel materials 
and the assessment of their quality, properties and performance is a challenging 
task. She demonstrated her chemistry expertise by the development of a novel 
technique for preparation of new water soluble functionalized carbon nanotubes 
Page 8 
with polymers and biomolecules, which have potentials for application in biology 
and medicine. Because of the commercial interest in these novel materials, a 
patent has been prepared, and [the petitioner] is the main contributor to this 
patent. 
[The petitioner] has contributed to the research in my group in many ways. She 
has worked with a number of group members, collaborating and advising my 
graduate students and postdoctoral researchers to achieve the goals of our 
research. She also has made significant contributions to the preparation of several 
research proposals, and some of them have already been recommended for 
funding. 
[The petitioner] is a high ranking world expert in chemistry of biologically active 
compounds. Her research involvement in my group led her to design and 
synthesize a modified nucleotide, a task she mastered in a very short period of 
time. She embarked on the synthesis of difluorophosphonates as analogues of the 
ubiquitous phosphate function and developed a multi-gram synthesis of the 
modified nucleotide in only nine steps and a 19% overall yield, demonstrating the 
viability of the synthetic path. I would like to point out that the chemistry of the 
difluorophosphonates is particularly difficult, because of the tendency of these 
species to decompose into carbenes. [The petitioner], with her strong background 
in synthetic organic chemistry and tremendous experimental techniques, 
succeeded and gathered crucial results. She was also able to crystallize an 
intermediate compound, which ascertained the unprecedented stereoselectivity of 
a key step of the process. This was the first X-Ray structure of a fluorinated 
phosphonothioate reported in literature. Her research in this area was thus 
seminal and influential, and, additionally, initiated new studies on the 
conformational behavior of the analogues. These results turned out to 
demonstrate that the analogues possess the required C-3' endo conformation 
needed to achieve optimal duplexes formation with the m-RNA. 
The chemical functionalization and solubilization of carbon nanotubes represent 
an emerging area in the research of nanotube-based materials. [The petitioner] 
has an extensive experience in the synthesis and has pioneered a range of 
chemically functionalized carbon nanotubes. She has also developed a new 
efficient approach to the dispersion of nanotubes in water. The studies that she 
Page 9 
has published on synthesis and characterization of water soluble carbon nanotuhes 
are of specific interest to the research community because the techniques 
developed have potential for separation of the nanotubes by type and length. In 
addition, there is strong interest in the marketplace for the development of water 
soluble nanotuhes for use in biology and medicine. The importance of her work 
is best demonstrated in the development of sensor materials with high sensitivity 
to biological and chemical molecules. Her work, which is published in the 
Journal of the American Chemical Society, illustrates that chemically 
functionalized carbon nanotubes show enhanced sensitivity for the detection of 
ammonia. The results of this research are promising and may lead to the 
development of novel techniques for the detection and identification of toxic 
chemicals, explosives, chemical and biological agents, and would greatly advance 
the capabilities of the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of 
Defense. 
A major contribution of [the petitioner's research in aboratory at 
the Universitv of California. Riverside.1 was the exverimental Drove of the < ,> 
mechanism of detection of ammonia with functionalized carbon nanotubes: until 
then the mechanism of action of carbon nanotubes in response to small molecule 
gases was questionable and it was ascribed to the change of the electronic nature 
of metal contact - carbon nanotube interface, presence of humidity or a charge 
transfer between the gas molecule and nanotubes. The research work, in which 
[the petitioner] played [a] very important role, clearly resolved this fundamental 
question. The key achievements of the study were summarized in a paper 
published in the Journal of the American Chemical Society. These findings are 
now broadly utilized by other research groups in academia and industry for the 
development of carbon nanotube sensors. 
Another important contribution of [the petitioner] in the carbon nanotube filed 
[sic] is the synthesis and characterization of water soluble singled-walled carbon 
nanotuhes. Carbon nanotubes have inert chemical structure and therefore they are 
difficult to process; this is a major challenge in the preparation of advanced 
devices and structures based on this material. Many applications, including 
composite materials, conductive and transparent thin films, electronics, sensors, 
and biomedicine, rely on the ability to disperse the nanotubes in solvents. [The 
petr] realized the potential of functionalized carbon nanotubes and devoted 
significant efforts to the synthesis of novel materials and understanding of their 
properties. She has recently achieved the synthesis ofpolyethylene functionalized 
carbon nanotubes and this material has shown very high solubility in water. The 
process is also amenable to industrial scaling and a patent on this material is in 
preparation. 
[The petitioner] has distinguished herself in the design and synthesis of 
fluorinated phosphorus compounds. Although the organic chemistry of 
phosphorous has been studied for over a century, the possibilities offered by the 
introduction of fluoroalkyl groups have only just begun to be realized, paralleling 
the huge and better-known field arising from carbon and hydrogen. When she 
started her work in 1990, the chemistry of fluorinated phosphorous compounds 
was very poorly developed and no other research group worked in this area. 
These newly discovered materials are of potential interest for agriculture and 
medicine, such as anti-cancer agents. At present, the study of fluorinated 
phosphorus compounds are of great interest and in progress by other researchers 
who have cited [the petitioner's] earlier articles. 
Besides her work developing new methodologies, she has made groundbreaking 
accomplishments in the investigation of new compounds and mechanism of their 
reactions. [The petitioner] was the first scientist to discover a new intramolecular 
hydrophosphination reaction of a phosphorus-carbon single bond in a phosphirene 
ring. This 2005 discovery has both academic and practical importance for 
catalysis and has already been cited four times by independent authors. 
[The petitioner] has also pioneered the investigation of a series of chemically 
functionalized water-soluble nanotubes and sensor materials with high sensitivity 
to gas analytes. These have potential benefits and uses in biomedicine and 
nanotechnology. In 2007, she focused her studies on the properties of 
functionalized carbon nanotubes, applying her expertise to the development of 
sensors capable of detecting very small concentrations of toxic gases. The 
mechanism of ammonia detection, which she resolved and published in the 
Journal of American Chemical Society, offers new possibilities for making 
sensors. Since that time, this article has been cited eight times by independent 
authors, indicating the topicality, importance and diverse technological 
development possibilities. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires "[elvidence of the 
alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major 
significance in the field." In compliance with Kazarian, the AAO must focus on the plain 
language of the regulatory criteria. 596 F.3d at 1121. Here, the evidence must be reviewed to see 
Page 11 
whether it rises to the level of "original scientific, scholarly, or business-related contributions of 
major significance in the field." 
In this case, while the recommendation letters praise the petitioner for her work as a chemical 
researcher and indicate her original findings, they fail to indicate that her contributions are of 
major significance to the field. The letters provide only general statements without offering any 
specific information to establish how the petitioner's work has been of major significance. For 
example, described the petitioner's "achievements open[ing] many avenues for 
research," however, he failed to indicate what avenues of research have been opened based on 
the petitioner's achievements. In addition, while indicated that the petitioner is a 
"brilliant and successful scientist" and described her contributions and research, she failed to 
e sufficient examples of the petitioner's influence in the field as a whole. Further, 
generally referred to some of the petitioner's work but failed to indicate how her work as Hi' P 
been of major significance. Moreover, d discussed the petitioner's 
contributions to their groups, but the record fails to reflect that the petitioner's research and 
findings have been significant beyond the research groups in which she has worked. This 
regulatory criterion not only requires the petitioner to make original contributions, the regulatory 
criterion also requires those contributions to be of major significance. While the petitioner's 
research demonstrates original findings, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that those findings 
are consistent with the lain language of the regulation requiring original contributions of major 
significance. asserts that the petitioner's work is broadly used by other 
universities and in industry, but fails to provide a single example of a university or industry that 
is doing so. 
Moreover, while describing the petitioner's research and generally referring to the importance of 
her research, the letters fail to provide specific details to explain how her research has currently 
impacted her field so as to be considered contributions of major significance. For instance, as 
cited above, stated that "[a] more widespread use of these original structures is 
likely in the near future [emphasis added] and "[tlhe abilit to enerate free phosphinidenes will 
enable fundamental studies [emphasis added]." Further, bescribed the petitioner's 
th potential biological and medicinal applications [emphasis added]." In addition, 
stated that the petitioner's "approach could extend the scope of phosphinidene 
chemistry and can generate numerous synthetic applications [emphasis added]." Moreover, 
Hahn stated that the petitioner's "techniques developed have potential for separation of the 
nanotubes by type and length [emphasis added]" and "[tlhe results of this research arepromising 
and may lead to the development of novel technologies [emphasis added]." Furthermore, 
tated that "a patent on this material is in preparation [emphasis added]." Also, w 
tated that "[tlhese newly discovered materials are of potential interest for agriculture and F 
medicine [emphasis added]," "are of great interest and in progress by other researchers who have -. - - 
cited [the petitioner's] earlier articleslemphasis added]," and ''[tlhese 
uses in biomedicine and nanotechnology [emphasis added]." Finally, 
"a patent on this material is in preparation [emphasis added]." 
Page 12 
Given the descriptions in terns of future applicability and determinations that may occur at a 
later date, it appears that the petitioner's research, while original, is still ongoing and that the 
findings she has made are not currently being implemented in her field. Again, while we 
acknowledge the originality of the petitioner's findings, the letters do not indicate that anyone is 
currently applying the petitioner's research findings so as to establish that these findings have 
already impacted the field in a significant manner. Accordingly, while we do not dispute the 
originality of the petitioner's research and findings, as well as the fact that the field has taken 
some notice of her work, the actual present impact of the petitioner's work has not been 
established. Rather, the petitioner's references appear to speculate about how the petitioner's 
findings may affect the field at some point in the future. Eligibility must be established 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). A petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes 
eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Comm'r. 1998). 
That decision further provides, citing Matter of BardouiNe, 18 I&N Dec. 114 (BIA 1981), that 
we cannot "consider facts that come into being only subsequent to the filing of a petition." Id. at 
176. Many of the letters proffered do in fact discuss far more persuasively the future promise of 
the petitioner's research and the impact that may result from her work, rather than how her past 
research already qualifies as a contribution of major significance in the field. A petitioner cannot 
file a petition under this classification based on the expectation of future eligibility. The 
assertion that the beneficiary's research results are likely to he influential is not adequate to 
establish that her findings are already recognized as major contributions in the field. While the 
experts praise the petitioner's research and work as both novel and of great potential interest, the 
fact remains that any measurable impact that results from the petitioner's research will likely 
occur in the future. 
While those familiar with her work generally describe it as "significant," "valuable," having 
"broad impact," and consistent with "outstanding contributions and extraordinary abilities," there 
is insufficient documentary evidence demonstrating that the petitioner's work is of major 
significance. This regulatory criterion not only requires the petitioner to make original 
contributions, the regulatory criterion also requires those contributions to be significant. We are 
not persuaded by vague, solicited letters that simply repeat the regulatory language but do not 
explain how the petitioner's contributions have already influenced the field. Merely repeating 
the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof.3 The 
lack of supporting evidence gives the AAO no basis to gauge the significance of the petitioner's 
present contributions. 
The phrase "major significance" is not defined in the statute or regulations. We must presume 
that the phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, that it has some meaning. 
Looking to the applicable dictionary definition, the word "major" is defined as "greater in 
importance or rank." Webster's New World College Dictionary 867 (4th Ed. 2008). The word 
"significance" is defined as "importance, consequence, moment." Id. at 1334. While these letters 
Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr 
Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). 
Page 13 
discuss the petitioner's personal achievements, there is no evidence that they constitute original 
contributions of "major significance" in her field. 
USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinion statements submitted as expert testimony. 
See Matter ofCaron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Commr. 1988). However, USCIS is 
ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the 
benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters of support from the petitioner's personal contacts is 
not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to 
whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795. Thus, the content of the writers' 
statements and how they became aware of the petitioner's reputation are important 
considerations. Even when written by independent experts, letters solicited by an alien in 
support of an immigration petition are of less weight than preexisting, independent evidence of 
original contributions of major significance. Furthermore, merely repeating the language of the 
statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. See Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. 
v. Suva, 724 F. Supp. at 1108. 
Finally, the record reflects that the petitioner submitted documentary evidence from Web of 
Science reflecting that her 24 articles were cited 75 times by other researchers and scientists in 
their published works. However, a further review of the documentary evidence reflects that her 
most cited article, Preparation of New Triphenylphosphonium Salts Based on 2,3-Dichloro-4- 
Hydroxobutenzc Acid and its Esters, was cited only nine times. Furthermore, 20 of her articles 
were cited five times or less, with seven of her articles never having been cited by others. While 
we take into consideration the ranking of journals in which her articles have appeared, such as 
Tetrahedron, Journal of the American Chemical Society, and Organometallics, we are not 
persuaded that the moderate citations of the petitioner's articles are reflective of the significance 
of her work in the field. The petitioner failed to establish how those findings or citations of her 
work by others have significantly contributed to her field. 
Without additional, specific evidence showing that the petitioner's work has been original, 
influential, or has otherwise risen to the level of contributions of major significance, we cannot 
conclude that she meets this criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence ofthe alien's authorship ofscholarly articles in the field, in professional 
or major trade publications or other major media. 
In the director's decision, although he found that the petitioner published articles in scientific 
journals, he found that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for this criterion as the 
petitioner's work was not cited extensively by others. The plain language of the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. 5 204,5(h)(3)(vi) requires "[elvidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in 
the field, in professional or major trade publications or other major media." Pursuant to 
Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1122, the petitioner submitted sufficient documentation establishing that she 
Page 14 
meets the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204,5(h)(3)(iv). Therefore, we withdraw 
the findings of the director for this criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner established that she meets this criterion. 
C. Final Merits Determination 
In accordance with the Kazarian opinion, we must next conduct a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) 
a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen 
to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor," 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2); and (2) "that the alien bas 
sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been 
recognized in the field of expertise." See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
5 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5@)(3). See also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 11 15. The 
petitioner established eligibility for two of the criteria, in which at least three are required under 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). In this case, many of the deficiencies in the 
documentation submitted by the petitioner have already been addressed in our preceding 
discussion of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
While the petitioner established eligibility for the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iv) 
(judging), we note that the documentary evidence submitted by the petitioner reflects claims of 
Journal of Physical Chemistry A/B/C, stated that he "selected [the petitioner1 to review papers," - A && . 
but failed to indicate if she actually reviewed any papers for the journal. Finally, the petitioner 
submitted a letter from stated that 
the petitioner served as a scientific referee in November 2008, the same month the petitioner 
filed her petition. This evidence related to the petitioner is in stark contrast to the experience of 
those who submitted letters on the petitioner's behalf. The references include an Editor-in-Chief, 
Founding Editors, Editorial Board Members, Coordinating Editor, Co-Editor, Deputy Editors, 
Contributing Editors, and Reviewers for numerous journals. Specifically, the references have the 
following experiences as judges: 
Founding Regional Editor, Coordinating Editor, and Co- 
e Journal of Organometallic, Founding Editor of 
OrganometaNics, and Editorial Board Memberships for Chemistry of 
Materials, Applied Organometallic Chemistry, Russian Chemical Bulletin, 
and CRC Press Handbook of Chemistry and Physics; 
Editorial Board for Synthesis; 
Page 15 
3. Editorial Board for the Journal of the American Chemical 
Society, Molecular Crystals and Liquid Ciystals, Advanced Materials, 
Chemical Physics Letters, and Materials Chemistiy; 
4. - Reviewer for 16 journals such as Chemical Reviews and 
5. 
6. 
Research, Chemical Communications, and Heteroatom 
Chemistry. 
When compared to the petitioner, who has reviewed for at least two publications, the petitioner's 
references have considerably distinguished themselves based on their editorial experience. 
Moreover, while the petitioner demonstrated that she meets the plain language of the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. 5 204,5(h)(3)(vi), the record reflects that the petitioner submitted evidence of having 
authored 24 scholarly articles. Again, however, when compared to the authorship of those in her 
field, the record reflects: 
Similarly, the petitioner's claims of her substantial contributions under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3)(v), based in part on document evidence reflecting that her published material 
was cited 75 times by others. We noted tha published mated was cited 15 018 
times. While the petitioner's most cited article was cited 9 times by others, 46 of 
articles were cited 50 or more times by others. While the petitioner submitted w evl ence o 
moderate citation of her work by others, we are not persuaded that such a citation rate 
demonstrates the sustained national or international acclaim required for this highly restrictive 
classification. As authoring scholarly articles is inherent to scientific research, we will evaluate a 
citation history or other evidence of the impact of the petitioner's articles when determining their 
significance to the field. For example, numerous independent citations for an article authored by 
the petitioner would provide solid evidence that other researchers have been influenced by her 
work and are familiar with it. Such an analysis at the final merits determination stage is 
appropriate pursuant to Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1122. On the other hand, few or no citations of an 
article authored by the petitioner may indicate that her work has gone largely unnoticed by his 
field. The petitioner submitted evidence showing that her body of work has been independently 
Page 16 
cited 75 times. As indicated previously, 20 of her articles were cited five times or less, while 
seven of her articles have never been cited by others. While these citations demonstrate some 
interest in her published articles, they are not sufficient to demonstrate that her articles have 
attracted a level of interest commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim. 
The petitioner failed to establish that she "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). A comparison of the petitioner's 
claim of reviewing manuscripts for three journals, authorship of 24 articles, and citation of her 
work by others with those of her references indicates that the very top of her field is a level far 
above her present level of achievement. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) 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 weight given to evidence submitted to fulfill the 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204,5(h)(3), therefore, depends on the extent to which such evidence 
demonstrates, reflects, or is consistent with sustained national or international acclaim at the very 
top of the alien's field of endeavor. 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. 3 204,5(h)(2). As evidenced above, the petitioner's accomplishments falls 
far short of establishing her sustained national or international acclaim. 
We also cannot ignore that the statute requires the petitioner to submit "extensive 
documentation" of her sustained national or international acclaim. See section 203(b)(l)(A) of 
the Act. The commentary for the proposed regulations implementing section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the 
Act provide that the "intent of Congress that a very high standard be set for aliens of extraordinary 
ability is reflected in this regulation by requiring the petitioner to present more extensive 
documentation than that required" for lesser classifications. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30704 (July 5, 
1991). Further, the petitioner claims eligibility for the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204,5(h)(3)(v) 
based mostly on recommendation letters, which are not sufficient to meet this highly restrictive 
classification. We note that the letters were all from individuals who have worked or interacted 
with the petitioner. While such letters can provide important details about the petitioner's role in 
various projects, they cannot form the cornerstone of a successful extraordinary ability claim. 
Vague, solicited letters from local colleagues or letters that do not specifically identify how her 
contributions have influenced the field are insufficient. The statutory requirement that an alien 
have "sustained national or international acclaim" necessitates evidence of recognition beyond 
the alien's immediate acquaintances. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 
1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). Further, USCIS may, in its discretion, use as 
advisory opinion statements as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N 
Dec. 791 at 795. However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination 
regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters of support 
from the petitioner's personal contacts in not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may 
evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 
795. Thus, the content of the writers' statements and how they became aware of the petitioner's 
reputation are important considerations. Even when written by independent experts, letters 
Page 17 
solicited by an alien in support of any immigration petition are of less weight than preexisting, 
independent evidence that one would expect of an individual who has sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top of the field. 
Finally, when compared to the accomplishments of individuals who submitted recommendation 
letters on the petitioner's behalf, it appears level of the petitioner's field is far 
above the level she has attained. For example, has received numerous awards and 
of work, and is an elected member of the National Academy of Sciences in 2000. The petitioner 
failed to submit evidence demonstrating that she "is one of that small percentage who have risen to 
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. While the record reflects that the petitioner possesses talent as a research scientist, the 
record falls far short in classifying the petitioner as an alien or extraordinary ability pursuant to the 
requirements of the statute and regulations. 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. 
111. Conclusion 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished herself to such an 
extent that she may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim and to be 
within the small percentage at the very top of her field. The evidence is not persuasive that the 
petitioner's achievements set her significantly above almost all others in her 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. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be 
denied by the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in 
the initial decision. See Spencer Enterprises, Znc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1043, 
afd, 345 F.3d at 683; see also Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d at 145 (noting that the AAO conducts 
appellate review on a de novo basis). 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternative basis for denial. 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 1361. 
Here, that burden has not been met. 
Page 18 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.