dismissed EB-1A Case: Chromatography And Analytical Chemistry

identifying data deleted to 
prevent cleady unwarr~nted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBuc<x>py 
DATE: 
MAR 262012 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.c. § I 153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office 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. § 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 $630. Please be aware that 8 C.P.R. § 1 03.5(a)(l )(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
{#~ 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
-Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition on April 16, 2010. The petitioner, who is also the beneficiary, appealed the decision with 
the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on May 18,2010. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in the sciences, specifically, 
in the field of chromatography and analytical chemistry, pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act or INA), 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(1)(A). The director 
determined that the petitioner has not established the sustained national or international acclaim 
necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the 
statute that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim" and 
present "extensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. See INA § 203(b)(1)(A)(i); 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that an alien can 
establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement of 
a major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the regulation 
outlines ten categories of specific objective evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (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 submitted a brief and additional evidence, some of which was already part of the 
record.' For the reasons discussed below, the AAO affirms the director's adverse decision that the 
petitioner has not established his eligibility for the exclusive classification sought. Specifically, the 
AAO finds that although the petitioner meets the participation as a judge criterion under 8 c.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and the authorship of scholarly articles criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), 
he meets no other criterion. As such, he has not submitted the requisite evidence under at least three 
of the evidentiary categories for which evidence must be submitted to meet the minimum eligibility 
requirements necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. In short, the AAO must 
dismiss the petitioner's appeal. 
1. 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 Counsel's brief, dated June 14,2010, is entitled Motion to Reopen and Reconsider the Texas Service Center's Denial 
of 1-140 Petition for Immigrant Worker - EBI - Individual of Extraordinary Ability. Notwithstanding the title of the 
brief, the AAO will consider it as the counsel's appellate brief, because in the Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form 1-
290B), filed on May 18, 20 I 0, counsel indicated that he was filing an appeal, not a motion to reopen. 
-Page 3 
(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 H.R. 723 WIst 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. 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be 
established either through evidence 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 ten 
categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x). 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the denial of a petition filed under 
this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although the court upheld 
the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the AAO's evaluation of evidence 
submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion. 2 With respect to the criteria at 8 c.F.R. 
§ 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." Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1121-
22. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the 
petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed 
to satisfy the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." Kazarian, 
596 F.3d at 1122 (citing to 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3». 
2 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. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi). 
Page 4 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then 
considered in the context of a final merits determination. In this matter, the AAO will review the 
evidence under the plain language requirements of each criterion claimed. As the petitioner did not 
submit qualifying evidence under at least three criteria, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner 
has failed to satisfy the regulatory requirement of presenting three types of evidence. Kazarian, 596 
F.3d at 1122. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria3 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
When counsel initially filed the visa petition on October 23, 2009, he claimed that the petitioner 
meets the prizes or awards for excellence criterion under 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). In response to 
the director's Request for Evidence, counsel again stated that the petitioner meets this criterion. The 
director concluded otherwise on April 16, 2010, finding that "Scholarships, fellowships and 
competitive postdoctoral appointments generally are not the type of nationally or internationally 
prizes or awards for excellence that would establish that the alien has achieved sustained national or 
international acclaim and recognition in the alien's field of expertise." In the instant appeal, counsel 
has not challenged the director's decision as relating to this criterion. As such, the AAO concludes 
that the petitioner has abandoned this issue, as he did not timely raise it on appeal. Sepulveda v. 
United States Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (l1th Cir. 2005); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-
27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *1, 9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (the United States District Court 
found the plaintiff's claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO). 
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. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
In his appellate brief, counsel claimed that "[the petitioner] is considered to be one of the leading 
experts on bioanalytics. His research has been cited in over fifty journals by researchers globally, 
who have relied on [his] work and techniques in their [] statistical and bioanalytical work." Counsel 
concluded that "[the petitioner] has indeed met his burden of proof in establishing that he has had 
numerous material published about his work and research in scientific journals and manuscripts.,,4 
The AAO disagrees. 
3 Counsel does not claim that the petitioner meets the regulatory categories of evidence not discussed in this decision. 
4 In his brief, counsel asserted that the pertinent issue is "whether [his] work in the field for which classification is 
sought has been published in professional or major trade publications or other major media." This reading is inconsistent 
with the plain language of the regulation, which requires "[p ]ublished material about the alien in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media .... " 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
-Page 5 
The plain language of this criterion states that the publish material must be both (1) in "professional" 
or "major" trade publications, and (2) "about" the alien. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii); Hristov v. 
Roark, No. 09-CV-2731, 2011 WL 4711885, at *10 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011). While the AAO 
accepts that the approximately fifty journals, citing the petitioner's publications, were published in 
"professional or major trade publications," the AAO is not persuaded that the published material was 
"about the alien ... ,relating to the alien's work in the field for which classific~ 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii).5 S' although in his May 27, 2010 letter, ~ 
claimed that in his 2006 
article on chiral separations, he "cited [the petitioner's] articles on the separation of the isomers of 
the drugs Ibuprofen and Verapamil," he did not assert that his article was "about the alien ... , 
relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought," as required under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Moreover, other than stating that his 2006 article is "on chiral separations," 
Professor Ward provided no other information on the contents of his article. As such, the AAO 
cannot find that Professor Ward's article was "about the alien." 
Similarly, in his May 12, 2010 email, an analytical chemistry professor at .. 
one of the research articles of the 
which was published in International 
review journal." Other than providing the title and the name 
provided no other information as to the contents of his 
article. As such, the AAO is unable to find that_ article was "about the alien." 
suffers from the same deficiency. 
Professor Wasiak stated in his letter that he "cited" one of the petitioner's articles in his 2008 article, 
published in the Other than providing the title of his article, 
Professor Wasiak, to on the contents of his 2008 article. Again, 
the AAO is left with insufficient evidence to conclude that Professor_rticle was "about" 
the petitioner, "relating to [his] work in the field for which classification is sought." See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
In addition to the abovementioned evidence, in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner has not 
met the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), the AAO reviewed all of the petitioner's evidence 
in the record, including: 
5 Accord~'n to counsel, the petitioner's publications were cited in articles published in the Analytical Chemistry, which 
Professor claimed to be the journal in the field of chemistry; International Journal of 
Analytica emlstry, w IC to be a peer review journal; and Current Drug Discovery 
Technologies, which Professor claimed to be a peer review journal. Based on the petitioner's evidence, 
including the June 2010 SCOPUS online printouts and his reference letters, the AAO finds that articles, citing the 
petitioner's pUblications, were published in "professional or major trade publications." 
-Page 6 
1. 24, 2010 letter, in which he claimed that the petitioner's articles 
were "cited by world wide [sic] researchers in over 50 internationally acclaimed journals," 
but failed to specify the contents of any of the "over 50" journals or provide information on 
whether any was about the petitioner or his work. 
2. ~no online printout from the Humboldt Network that indicates that 
__ a chemistry professor, who served as the 
2005 to 2007, at the •••••••••• 1IIi 
3. 
as the first author in at least seven articles published in 2007. The petitioner was 
second author in one of the seven articles and the last author (fourth) in another article. 
CItes 
petitioner's 2005 article among over forty references, but that contains insufficient evidence 
on the contents of the incomplete article. 
4. An incomplete and illegible copy of the article .1II ••••• I!1 •••••••• 
that cites _ ... - ~ .. - ... - - -
the petitioner's 2006 article among seven references, but that contains insufficient evidence 
on the contents of the incomplete article. 
5. An incomplete and! illegible c_opy of the arttiiccile.::::::::::::~~::-. ~ I. ' that cites 
the petitioner's 2005 and 2006 articles among over fifty references, but that contains 
insufficient evidence on the contents of the incomplete article. 
6. The March 2010 article 
_thatcites 
7. 
8. 
~he petitioner in the body of the article. 
article among over 
the article. 
that cites the petitioner's 2007 
not mention the petitioner in the body of 
that cites the petitioner's 
2006 article among nearly thirty references, but that does not mention the petitioner in the 
body of the article. 
The AAO has routinely held that articles which cite the petitioner's work are primarily about the 
authors' own work or recent trends in the field, and are not about the petitioner or his work. See 
-Page 7 
Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at 7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding a finding 
that articles about a show are not about the actor). Moreover, as noted above, the evidence the 
petitioner submitted does not sufficiently inform the AAO of the contents of all the published 
material that cites the petitioner's work and/or show that the published material even mentions the 
petitioner in the body of the articles. Accordingly, the AAO concludes that the petitioner has not 
met this criterion that requires a showing that the published material is "about [him] ... , relating to 
[his] work in the field for which classification is sought." See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an allied field of specification for which classification is sought. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
Along with counsel's appellate brief, the petitioner submitted an April 11, 2010 letter from • 
............................ inviting the petitioner to be a 
blication. Both the June 10,2010 and May 11,2010 Interscience online printouts 
is "the most comprehensive source in separation science, 
as all areas of chromatographic and electrophoretic separation methods are covered." The petitioner 
also submitted June 2010 online' ... that he reviewed and recommended for 
Accordingl y, 
the AAO finds that the petitioner has met the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv).6 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
In his appellate brief, counsel, relying solely on the reference letters, including those from Professor 
a professor at the 
a semor scientist at 
has established that "[h]e is a leading 
authority on [c]hromatography, e methods of separation of chiral drugs and enantiomers, whose 
research has been used by leading scientists in the field." Under the plain meaning of the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), the petitioner must show not only that his scientific contributions are 
original, but that they are of major significance in the field of chromatography and analytical 
chemistry. The mere allegations, even assuming they were true, that the petitioner is a leading 
authority in the field whose research has been cited by leading scientists do not establish that the 
petitioner's contributions are either original or of major significance. 
According to 27, 2010 letter, the petitioner's 2005 article 
6 As the AAO finds that the petitioner has met the criterion under 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), it will not address 
counsel's additional arguments relating to the criterion. 
Page 8 
Chromatography" and his 2004 articl ., -. _... -... - - - -
constitute studies that "are of significant importance in the 
separation of chiral y repeating the language of the statute or regulations, 
however, does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. See Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. 
Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d Cir. 1990); Avyr Associates, Inc. v. 
Meissner, No. 95 Civ. 10729, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 18, 1997). Similarly, USCIS 
need not accept primarily conclusor~ 756, Inc. v. Attorney General of United States, 
745 F. Supp. 9, (D.C. Dist. 1990). _letter focuses on the importance of the area of 
research and fails to demonstrate that the petitioner's two articles constitute original contributions of 
major significance in the field of chromatography and analytical chemistry. 
_ May 12, 2010 email, citing the petitioner's 2006 article 
, states, 
In order to determine recovery and potency of each component present 
in the combined form of the drug products are very . ·ob 
[sic] in the pharmaceutical industry and to the best of 
knowledge, [the petitioner] was the first who developed such [a] 
sensitive and precise method for the extraction, separation and 
quantification which can benefit the pharmaceutical industry by 
reducing time, efforts and cost of the drug product. 
It is well established that the petitioner must demonstrate eligibility for the visa petition at the time 
of filing. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 
1971). _s assertion that the petitioner's work "can" benefit the pharmaceutical industry, not 
that it already has benefitted the pharmaceutical industry, is insufficient to show that the petitioner 
was eligible for the visa petition at the time of filing on October 23, 2009. Assuming arguendo that 
the petitioner's work had made certain aspects of the pharmaceutical industry more efficient, the 
petitioner has not provided a valid legal basis to support the argument that an increase in efficiency 
constitutes contributions of major significance in the field of chromato and analytical 
chemistry. Moreover, the AAO notes that it is not clear if both 
discussing the same work or research the petitioner had done, as they cited different articles 
published in different years. 
May 18,2010 letter states, 
[The petitioner] during the last decade has put a lot of efforts into 
extraordinary research work on the resolution of racemic compounds. 
His work attracted a great attention in analytical chemistry, especially 
in pharmaceutical analysis. [The petitioner] has developed some 
outstanding methods which are rapid and sensitive for the separation 
of enantiomers, which will be beneficial for pharmaceutical industry in 
Page 9 
the process of producing a drug containing only single enantiomer 
instead of the racemate. 
This letter fails to establish that the petitioner's work on the resolution of ra~ 
constitutes either original contributions or contributions of major significance. _ 
also appears to be speculating, or merely predicting, on the importance of the petitioner's work, by 
stating that it "will be beneficial for the pharmaceutical industry .... " Moreover, the petitioner has 
not shown that this predicted benefit of a process that "produc[es] a drug containing only single 
enantiomer instead of the racemate" constitutes contributions of major significance in the field of 
chromatography and analytical chemistry. 
suffers from the same deficiency. It claims that between 2002 and 2006, "[the petitioner] 
successfully developed extremely important purification methods and many novel separation 
techniques for [certain] drug molecules. This has been really very helpful and useful to develop 
single enantiomers contai~ that will [a] efficient drug for a particular 
type [of] disease." Like ~ letter, letter does not show 
that an increase in efficiency or effectiveness, at an unspecified level, constitutes contributions of 
major significance in the field of chromatography and analytical chemistry. 
s May 10, 2010 letter, which discusses the petitioner's work in broad and vague 
terms, suffers the same deficiency in that it fails to establish how the petitioner's work constitutes 
either original contributions or contributions of major significance in the field of chromatography 
and analytical chemistry. Specifically, in his letter, described the petitioner's 
work in one sentence and he predicted that his work "might bring a new era in the separation of 
enantiomers of racemic compounds .... " speculation, or mere prediction, does 
not establish that, at the time of the visa petition filing, the petitioner's work constituted either 
original contributions or contributions of major significance. Similarly, June 2, 
2009 letter, in which he predicted or speculated that "[the petitioner's] work is expected to be 
beneficiary in the clinical chemistry, biochemistry and pharmaceutical industry for new product 
development," is insufficient to show that, at the time of the visa petition filing, the petitioner's work 
constituted contributions of m~ance in the field of chromatography and analytical 
chemistry. The same is true for ~ May 24, 2010 letter. In his letter, _ claimed 
that the petitioner's work has "led to the development of a rapid method for the separation of the 
optical isomers of several DL amino acids," but failed to explain how such method already 
constituted contributions of major significance at the time of the visa petition filing. so 
used similar speculative stating that the petitioner's work "will directly benefit the patIents 
suffering from cancer." speculation, or mere prediction, does not establish that the 
petitioner's work constitutes either original contributions or contributions of major significance. 
Page 10 
Chemical, debates the significance of the petitioner's work on thin layer chromatography, noting that 
it is among "methods reported [to] suffer from disadvantages such as laborious, time-consuming and 
tedious liquid-liquid extraction or solid-phase extraction as sample preparation procedures, long 
response time, requirement of expensive instruments and low detection capability." This assertion 
does not support the petitioner's claim that his work constitutes contributions of major significance 
in the field of chromatography and analytical chemistry. 
Finally, the petitioner's evidence, specifically, the June 2010 SCOPUS online printouts, shows that 
none of his eight articles was cited more than twelve times. This number of citations is not, by itself, 
indicative of contributions of major significance in the field of chromatography and analytical 
chemistry. 
Accordingly, based on a review of all the evidence in the record, including documents not 
specifically mentioned above, the AAO concludes that the petitioner has not provided evidence of 
the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major 
significance in the field of chromatography and analytical chemistry. See 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
and other publications. Although not s lClent 
these are "major trade publications or other major media," the AAO does find that they constitute 
"professional" publications. 7 Specifically, he listed the eight articles, published between 2004 to 
2007, in his curriculum vitae, provided copies of the articles, and provided a number of reference 
letters and a June 2, 2010 SCOPUS online printout, showing that he was listed as one of the authors 
in the eight articles. Accordingly, the AAO finds that the petitioner has met the criterion under 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi).8 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
In his appellate brief, counsel asserted that the petitioner has performed in a leading or critical role 
for two organizations and establishments, namely Amneal Pharmaceuticals, where he worked, and 
Cornerstone Pharmaceuticals, Inc., where he works. The brief further states: 
7 The publication Biomedical Chroma is a "highly respected journal," according to letter, and 
a "highly ranked journal'" s email. The publication Journal of Chromatography B is a "highl!i:J 
....... according to letter, and a "internationally acclaimed journal[]," according to. 
8 As the AAO finds that the petitioner has met the criterion under 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), it will not address 
counsel's additional arguments relating to the criterion. 
-Page 11 
Prior to joining Cornerstone Pharmaceuticals, Inc., [the petitioner] was 
a Research Scientist with Amneal Pharmaceuticals[,] formally known 
as Intrapharm, Inc. [He] was selected by Intrapharm, Inc. after a 
stringent review process .... 
a senior research scientist at _ 
In addition, the petitioner 
at 
claimed that he had worked with the 
yet, this employment is not reflected in the petitioner's curriculum vitae. As 
the petitioner has provided inconsistent documents, "it is incumbent upon [him] to resolve the 
inconsistencies by independent objective evidence. Attempts to explain or reconcile the conflicting 
accounts [or evidence], absent competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth, in fact, lies, 
will not suffice." Matter of Ro, 19 I&N Dec. 58-2,591-92 (BIA 1988). The petitioner has provided 
no such evidence to explain or reconcile the inconsistent evidence. 
Irrespective of the inconsistencies, the III a 
leading or critical role in or_ 
• and he has not shown that either of these ?rganizations or establishments has a d~ 
reputation. First, the petitioner has provided no documents explaining the role he had in_ 
.. or a description of Intrapharm, Inc. As such, the AAO finds that the petitioner has not met the 
criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) based. on his involvement with Intrapharm, Inc. 
Second, the AAO finds that the petitioner has not met the criterion under 8 c.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(viii) 
based on his involvement wit~er_, or petitioner 
submitted two letters from ~ , or ••• 
four in 2008. In his May 19, 2009 letter, claimed that "[he] 
. from 2006 to 2008," and made no mention of _ 
[The petitioner] has been a key cqntributor and valuable team member 
on several of our drug product development project [sic] at 
Interpharm, Inc. including the development of oral contraceptive, 
delayed release proton pump inhibitor and anti-Alzheimer's drugs. 
Several drug products have been got [sic] approved from the USFDA 
because of [the petitioner]'s valuable contribution in the product filling 
[ sic]. 
-Page 12 
In his subsequent letter, dated June 14, 2010, _ stated that the nAT1T,,-,.nAr 
Research Scientist." He further discussed the petitioner's role in 
noted that on an unspecified date, . 
this letter, his description of the petitioner's role in 
was more detailed and~ than that which was provided in his May 19,2009 letter, the AAO 
concludes that, at best, __ letters show that the petitioner was a productive science researcher in 
a company with an unknown number of science researchers. There is simply insufficient evidence in 
the record from which the AAO can find that the petitioner, as a science researcher, played a leading 
or critical role in as compared to others in the 
company. In addition, the AAO notes that no one currently associated with the company has 
provided any evidence supporting the petitioner's claim that he has performed a leading or critical 
role in the company. 
Moreover, the record contains insufficient evidence establishing either 
as an organization or establishment that has a distinguished reputation. Based on 
counsel's appellate brief and _letters, appears to 
be a pharmaceutical company that produces drug products that have received the U.S. Food and 
Drug Administration's approval. This alone, however, is insufficient to show that it is an 
organization or establishment that has a distinguished reputation. The petitioner has provided 
insufficient evidence demonstrating that in the pharmaceutical industry, 
has a distinguished reputation. As such, the AAO the 
met the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) based on his involvement with this company. 
Third, the AAO finds that the petitioner has not met the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) 
based on his involvement with Accumed, Inc. The petitioner claimed in his curriculum vitae that in 
2008, he was a research associate for this company. Other than listing his employment 
responsibilities, the petitioner has no other evidence showing that he performed either a 
leading or critical role in Also, no one from the company has claimed that the 
respondent had such a role in 2008. Moreover, the record contains insufficient evidence establishing 
Accumed, Inc., as an organization or establishment that has a distinguished reputation in the 
pharmaceutical industry. As such, the AAO finds that the petitioner has not met the criterion under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) based on his involvement with this company. 
AAO finds that the petitioner has not performed in a leading or critical role in 
where the petitioner works. In support of his visa petition and the instant 
ili.iii.submitted a number of reference letters, including (1) two letters from. 
• one undated 
and one dated May 24, 2010; (2) two letters from 
dated June 3, 2009 and May 24, 2010; (3) an undated 
letter from 
Head; (4) a May 20, 2010 letter from 
Chief Executive Officer; and (5) a May 14, 2010 memorandum from 
-Page 13 
LureatePhama's Senior Quality Control Manager. The reference letters note that the s 
work resulted in the advancement of a number of projects, 
including CPI-613 and EmPAC, and the development of two chromatographic analytical assays. 
The letters also indicate that the petitioner was promoted to the position of an 
analyticallbioanalytical division group leader on May 24, 2010. 
The plain language of the criterion indicates that the petitioner must have performed in a leading or 
critical role for organizations or establishments, not merely for projects developed within the 
organizations or establishments. Also, the petitioner must show eligibility for the visa petition at the 
time of its filing on October 23, 2009. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 
14 I&N Dec. at 49. The petitioner's May 2010 promotion, therefore, does not establish that as of 
October 2009, he had performed in a leading or critical role for 
In addition, although the petitioner might be a well-regarded scientist in the company, as the record 
is devoid of an organizational chart or information on the number of scientists the company 
employed in October 2009, the AAO lacks sufficient evidence to conclude that the petitioner had 
performed in a leading or critical role for the company at the time he filed the visa petition. 
Moreover, the AAO notes that a June 10, 2010 online printout 
about the company mentions the petitioner's the petitioner. 
's press releases, dated May 27, 2009, November 11, 2009, and 
, ... ~vu.,~ CPI-613, one of the projects the petitioner was involved in, 
and mention other scientists. But they do not mention the petitioner. 
The company's March 22, 2010 press release does not mention the 
Furthermore, in his May 24, 2010 letter, 
"will" evaluate the potential of the technologies that the petitioner assisted in developing, and 
asserted that the petitioner "will play a central role in helping determine the 
effectiveness of these technologies." The letter indicates that as of May 2010, _ was 
speculating as to the impact of the technologies and predicting the petitioner's role in advancing the 
technologies. This does not support the petitioner's assertion that at the time of his visa petition 
filing in October 2009, he had performed in a leading or critical role for the company. 
In short, after evaluating all of the petitioner's evidence in the record, the AAO concludes that the 
petitioner does not perform a leading or critical role in Cornerstone Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and the 
petitioner has not met the criterion under 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) based on his involvement with 
h· 9 t IS company. 
Furthermore, even assuming arguendo that the petitioner has performed a leading or critical role for 
the plain language of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires the 
IJ~UUVIJL~l S evidence, including a March 22, 2010 press release indicating that 
into a collaboration agreement with the U.S. National Institute of Cancer, the AAO is 
Inc. has a distinguished reputation. 
petitioner to show his leading or critical role in more than one organization or establishment. The 
petitioner has not made such a showing. 
Accordingly, based on all the evidence in the record, including documents not specifically 
mentioned above, the AAO concludes that the petitioner has not submitted evidence that he has 
performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished 
reputation. See 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
For the reasons discussed above, the petitioner has not submitted the requisite evidence under at least 
three of the evidentiary categories for which evidence must be submitted to meet the minimum 
eligibility requirements necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. As such, the AAO 
dismisses the petitioner's appeal of the director's adverse decision. 
B. Summary 
The petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Had the petitioner submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary categories, in 
accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a 
"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," and (2) "that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. While the AAO concludes that the 
evidence is not indicative of a level of expertise consistent with the small percentage at the very top 
of the field or sustained national or international acclaim, the AAO need not explain that conclusion 
in a final merits determination. lO Rather, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to 
satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of presenting three types of evidence. Kazarian, 
596 F.3d at 1122. 
10 The AAO maintains de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v, DO}, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 
2004), In any future proceeding, the AAO maintains the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits determination as the office 
that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C,F.R. § I 03,5(a)(1 )(ii); see also INA §§ I 03(a)(I), 204(b); DHS Delegation 
Number 0150,1 (effective March 1,2003); 8 C,F.R. § 2,1 (2003); 8 c.F.R. § 103.l(f)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of Aurelio, 
19 I&N Dec, 458, 460 (BIA 1987) (holding that legacy INS, now USCIS, is the sole authority with the jurisdiction to 
decide visa petitions), 
Page 15 
The petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act and the 
petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. INA § 291, 
8 U.S.c. § 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be 
dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.