dismissed EB-1A Case: Experimental Biophysics

bntifying data ddeted to 
prevent dearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
OfJice ofAdministrative Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
mf3~lc COPY and Immigration 
- -. 
LIN 08 036 52672 
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. $ 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. 5 103.5 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. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
1 F. Grissom 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
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, pwsuant to 
section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1 153(b)(l)(A). The 
director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim 
necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief and resubmits all previously submitted documentation, which was 
already part of the record of proceeding. For the reasons discussed below, we uphold the director's 
ultimate conclusion that the petitioner has not established his eligibility for the exclusive classification 
sought. We reach this conclusion by considering the evidence under the individual regulatory criteria 
and in the aggregate. 
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 
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 
that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor. 8 C .F .R. 5 204.5 (h)(2). The 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. 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. 
While USCIS has approved at least one 0-1 nonimmigrant visa petition filed on behalf of the 
petitioner, the prior approval does not preclude USCIS from denying an immigrant visa petition 
based on a different, if similarly phrased, standard. It must be noted that many 1-140 immigrant 
petitions are denied after USCIS approves prior nonimmigrant petitions. See e.g. Q Data 
Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2003); IKEA US v. US Dept. of Justice, 48 F. 
Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Brothers Co. Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989). 
Because USCIS spends less time reviewing 1-129 nonimmigrant petitions than 1-140 immigrant 
petitions, some nonimmigrant petitions are simply approved in error. Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. 
INS,293 F. Supp. 2d at 29-30; see also Texas A&M Univ. v. Upchurch, 99 Fed. Appx. 556, 2004 
WL 1240482 (5th Cir. 2004) (finding that prior approvals do not preclude USCIS from denying an 
extension of the original visa based on a reassessment of petitioner's qualifications). 
The AAO is not required to approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not been 
demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See e.g. Matter of 
Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm'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). 
Furthermore, the AAO's authority over the service centers is comparable to the relationship between 
a court of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director had approved the 
nonimmigrant petitions on behalf of the beneficiary, the AAO would not be bound to follow the 
contradictory decision of a service center. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 2000 WL 
282785 (E.D. La.), afd, 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 51 (2001). 
According to Part 6 of the petition, this petition seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with 
extraordinary ability as a senior scientist. In characterizing the petitioner's field of endeavor, the 
director stated that the petitioner was a researcher. On appeal, counsel asserts that the director should 
have narrowed the petitioner's field of endeavor to experimental biophysics. Subsequently in his brief, 
counsel cites Buletini v. INS, 860 F. Supp. 1222 (E.D. Mich. 1994.) 
 In contrast to the broad 
precedential authority of the case law of a United States circuit court, the AAO is not bound to 
follow the published decision of a United States district court in cases arising within the same 
district. See Matter of K-S-, 20 I&N Dec. 715 (BIA 1993). The reasoning underlying a district 
judge's decision will be given due consideration when it is properly before the AAO; however, the 
analysis does not have to be followed as a matter of law. Id. at 71 9. Nevertheless, it is worth noting 
that Buletini, a decision on which counsel relies later in his brief, criticized legacy Immigration and 
Naturalization Service (INS), now USCIS, for unnecessarily narrowing that alien's field to 
nephrology research. Buletini, 860 F. Supp. at 1230. Even if we limit the petitioner's field to 
experimental biophysics, however, we concur with the director that the petitioner has not 
demonstrated the necessary sustained national or international acclaim. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. ij 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally 
recognized award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, at 
least three of which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualify 
as an alien of extraordinary ability. On appeal, counsel relies on Buletini, 860 F. Supp. at 1234 for the 
proposition that once the petitioner demonstrates that he meets three criteria he has met his burden. 
As discussed in the previous paragraph, district court decisions are not binding on us. That said, we 
do not contest this principle. We note, however, that the court in Buletini acknowledged that "the 
examiner must evaluate the quality, including the credibility, of the evidence presented to determine 
if it, in fact, satisfies the criteria." Buletini, 860 F. Supp. at 1234. 
Consistent with the above, we find that if the statutory standard of national or international acclaim 
is to have any meaning, the evidence submitted to meet a given criterion must be indicative of or 
consistent with such acclaim in that field. Accord Yasar v. DHS, 2006 WL 778623 *9 (S.D. Tex. 
March 24, 2006); All Pro Cleaning Services v. DOL et al., 2005 WL 4045866 * 11 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 
26, 2005). We disagree with counsel that such a careful analysis causes us to "deviate" from the 
regulatory criteria, which concerned the Buletini court. Instead, such an analysis is necessary to 
comply with congressional intent in enacting this exclusive classification. 
Counsel also expresses the concern that no weight was given to the reference letters in this matter, 
which were from those with "extensive expertise in the field of Experimental Biophysics." The mere 
submission of expert letters, however, is insufficient. It would be absurd to suggest that USCIS may 
not review the content of those letters. As will be explained in our detailed analysis of the letters 
below, most of the authors provide little or no support for their broad generalizations that are 
repeated nearly verbatim in most of the letters. 
The petitioner has submitted evidence that, he claims, meets the following criteria under 8 C.F.R. 
ij 204.5(h)(3).' 
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 classijication is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
At the outset, we note that the regulation at 8 C.F.R. ij 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires that the published 
material be "about the alien," relating to hs work. Compare 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(3)(i)(C) (requiring 
published material about the alien's work). Counsel cites Buletini, 860 F. Supp. at 1234, for the 
proposition that we cannot deviate fiom the plain language of the regulatory criteria. The plain 
language of this criterion, however, requires that the published material be about the alien relating to his 
work rather than simply about hs work. As will be seen below in our analysis of the evidence under 
this criterion, the distinction in this case is important. 
1 
The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
The petitioner relies on citations of his work to meet this criterion. The petitioner initially submitted 
evidence that his articles are consistently cited, with one article 
 60 citations. He also 
submitted a six-page article by 
 the petitioner's Ph.D. advisor, that discusses the 
petitioner's work in two 
 articles discussed by, one of 
which is ranked as "of outstanding interest," are coauthored by - 
On April 14, 2008, the director issued a request for additional evidence (RFE), advising that citations 
cannot serve to meet this criterion. In response, the petitioner submitted a 66-page review article that, 
while focusing on "1 0 different teams who provide shining examples of how to properly implement, as 
well as report, biosensor analysis," lists over 1000 cited references. The 66-page article spends half of a 
page on the petitioner's work. The petitioner also submitted an unpublished manuscript that cites the 
petitioner and thanks him for "interesting discussions." 
The director concluded that the citations were not "commensurate with published material about the 
[petitioner] in professional or major trade publications or other major media." On appeal, counsel 
asserts that the petitioner's research has been "discussed in great detail in annual reviews of research 
having major significance in the field of Experimental Biophysics and in at least one scientific 
treatiselbook chapter." Counsel concludes that these discussions are more than "mere citations 
referencing" the petitioner's work. Counsel specifically references two articles that were published in 
2008, after the petition was filed. These articles cannot be considered evidence of the petitioner's 
eligibility as of the filing date, the date as of which the petitioner must establish his eligibility. See 
8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l. Cornrn'r. 1971). 
Finally, counsel asserts that there is no requirement that the published material be "limited to only 
discussions of one scientist's research." 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires that the published material be about the alien 
relating to his work. We do not interpret "published material" to include a single endnote or paragraph. 
Rather, the phrase "published material" refers to the entire article. 
The article by 
 may contain a discussion of the petitioner's work but it cannot be credibly 
asserted that this article is primarily about the petitioner relating to his work. Moreover, we are not 
persuaded that a review by the petitioner's own Ph.D. advisor of work coauthored with that advisor is 
indicative of or consistent with national or international acclaim. We note that the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iii) specifically requires that the petitioner provide the author of the material, 
revealing that the author of the material is relevant information. 
It is not clear whether or not the 66-page article postdates the filing of the petition. Assuming it was 
already published as of that date, it cannot be concluded that the half-page discussion of the petitioner's 
work in this 66-page article with over 1000 citations is primarily about the petitioner relating to his 
work. 
In light of the above, the evidence submitted does not meet the plain language of the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. fj 204.5@)(3)(iii). Specifically, the review articles submitted are not published material about 
the petitioner relating to his work. Thus, the petitioner has not established that he meets 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 classification is sought. 
Initially, counsel relied on the petitioner's service as a peer reviewer for the Journal of Molecular 
Biology from 2004 through 2006 to meet this criterion. The petitioner submitted a letter from Dr. 
stating that, as a member of the editorial board for this journal, he can confirm the petitioner's 
work reviewing manuscripts for the journal. The petitioner also submitted an unsigned letter from 
, advising that the journal sends each manuscript "to a scientist who is an 
expert in the field of the manuscript." As this letter is unsigned, it has no evidentiary value. 
The director's RFE requested evidence that the petitioner's peer review responsibilities set him apart 
from others in the field and garnered acclaim. In response, the petitioner submits a new letter from Dr. 
confirming that the Journal of Molecular Biology is the "premier journal covering the areas of 
molecular biology and biophysics" and the importance of the peer review process in maintaining the 
high quality of papers in the journal. further asserts that serving as a regular reviewer for 
the journal is a "mark of esteem" for a scientist and is "not shared by many scientists." The petitioner 
also submitted a review request from addressed to the petitioner. The request states that 
the journal relies on the voluntary efforts of referees to ensure the integrity of the scientific literature 
and values the petitioner's advice "as an expert in this field." 
 The request also asks for 
recommendations of other potential reviewers if the petitioner is unable to complete the review. 
The director concluded that the large number of peer-reviewed scientific journals rely on numerous 
scientists to review manuscripts, that published authors are expected to reciprocate by serving as a 
reviewer and, thus, that peer review is routine in the field and cannot set the petitioner apart from others 
in his field. 
On appeal, counsel reiterates the statements in 
 letter and notes the prestige of the 
journal's editorial board. 
 Counsel concludes that as a "gatekeeper" of the selection process, the 
petitioner's role as a peer reviewer "is even more noteworthy." The petitioner submits materials from 
www.elsevier.com regarding the Journal of Molecular Biology stating that manuscripts are initially 
reviewed by the editors and that "only those papers that meet the scientific and editorial standards of the 
Journal will be sent for outside review." If a manuscript is found to meet those standards by an editor, 
the editor will then "seek advice" from "two or more expert reviewers about the scientific content and 
clarity of presentation." Authors are requested to suggest the names of up to six potential reviewers, 
who should be "established scientists with expertise in the field of the paper." 
We do not find it violates the reasoning in Buletini, 860 F. Supp. at 1231, to examine the evidence 
submitted as to whether it is indicative of or inconsistent with national or international acclaim. The 
court in Buletini was concerned that an alien would need to first demonstrate "extraordinary ability" 
in order to meet this criterion. We are not following this "circular exercise" that troubled the court. 
Rather, we are looking at the type of review responsibilities inherent to the field and what review 
responsibilities might be indicative of or at least consistent with sustained national or international 
acclaim. Accord Yasar, 2006 WL 778623 at "9; All Pro Cleaning Services., 2005 WL 4045866 at 
"1. 
We do not contest that reviewers must be scientists with "expertise in the field" in that their area of 
specialty should cover the subject matter of the manuscript. We would not expect a chemist to review a 
mechanical engineering manuscript. Notlung in the record, however, suggests that peer review is more 
than a professional responsibility of published researchers. It is an editor who makes the initial and 
final review of the manuscripts, seeking only advice fiom reviewers. We also cannot ignore that the 
petitioner was requested to review for the Journal of Molecular Biology by his own Ph.D. advisor. 
This request is not indicative of any recognition beyond the laboratory where the petitioner performed 
his doctoral research. 
Ultimately, we cannot ignore that scientific journals are peer reviewed and rely on many scientists to 
review submitted articles. Thus, while we do not questio- expertise or sincerity that peer 
review for a prestigious journal is a "mark of esteem," peer review, by itself, is not indicative of or 
consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. Without evidence that sets the petitioner 
apart fiom others in his field, such as evidence that he has reviewed manuscripts for a journal that 
boasts and credits a small number of elite reviewers, 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. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in thejeld. 
Initially, counsel relied on letters from experts in the field, the petitioner's publication and citation 
record and his student fellowship to meet this criterion. In the WE, the director requested 
corroboration of the petitioner's role in collaborative projects. In response, counsel noted the positive 
reviews of the petitioner's research, invitations to join a research group and present his work, expert 
letters and the petitioner's citation record. The director concluded that the experts and reviews 
confirmed the originality and significance of the petitioner's research but did not demonstrate the type 
of wide implementation of the petitioner's work that can be expected of a contribution of major 
significance. The director also noted the collaborative nature of the petitioner's research and 
questioned the petitioner's role in relation to the other members of his team. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the expert letters, some of which are fiom "some of the world's most 
respected scientist[s]," explain the complex subject matter and support the other objective evidence in 
the record, including the review of the petitioner's articles and his publication record. Counsel notes 
that the petitioner is the first listed author for most of his articles. The petitioner submits a report 
discussing the order of authors for collaborative research stating that "first authorship is the gold 
standard." 
At the outset, we note that the regulations contain a separate criterion for authorship of published 
articles. 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3)(vi). The director concluded that the petitioner in this matter meets 
that criterion and, for the reasons discussed below, we concur with that finding. 
 We cannot 
conclude, however, that meeting that criterion is presumptive evidence that the petitioner also meets 
this criterion. To hold otherwise would render meaningless the statutory requirement for extensive 
evidence and the regulatory requirement that a petitioner meet three separate criteria. 
The petitioner's field, like most science, is research-driven, and there would be little point in 
publishing research that did not add to the general pool of knowledge in the field. According to the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not only original but of 
major significance. We must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, 
thus, that it has some meaning. To be considered a contribution of major significance in the field of 
science, it can be expected that the results would have already been reproduced and confirmed by 
other experts and applied in their work. Otherwise, it is difficult for USCIS to gauge the impact of 
the petitioner's work. 
We concur with counsel that reference letters are important and we will consider the letters 
submitted in this matter below. The opinions of experts in the field, however, while not without 
weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a successful claim of sustained national or international 
acclaim. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert 
testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 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 from experts supporting the petition 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. USCIS may even give less weight to an opinion 
that is not corroborated, in accord with other information or is in any way questionable. Id. at 795; 
see also Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of 
California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l. Comm'r. 1972)). 
In evaluating the reference letters, we note that letters containing mere assertions of widespread 
acclaim and vague claims of contributions are less persuasive than letters that specifically identify 
contributions and provide specific examples of how those contributions have influenced the field. 
In addition, letters from independent references who were previously aware of the petitioner through 
his reputation and who have applied his work are far more persuasive than letters from independent 
references who were not previously aware of the petitioner and are merely responding to a 
solicitation to review the petitioner's curriculum vitae and work and provide an opinion based solely 
on this review. Ultimately, evidence in existence prior to the preparation of the petition carries 
greater weight than new materials prepared especially for submission with the petition. An 
individual with sustained national or international acclaim should be able to produce unsolicited 
materials reflecting that acclaim. 
The petitioner obtained his Ph.D. in 2002 fi-om University College London under the direction of Dr. 
He performed his postdoctoral research at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) in 
the laboratory of. In 2006, the petitioner began working for Pfizer Global 
Research as a senior research scientist. 
At the outset, we note that all but two of the reference letters end with a nearly identical paragraph 
asserting that it is "critically important" to retain the petitioner's services in the United States to 
maintain "global leadership" based on the petitioner's "exemplary contributions." Similarly, several 
letters include a nearly identical paragraph about the petitioner's doctoral research beginning with the 
- -- 
sentence: "I came to know [the petitioner] through his doctoral research, which he c&ed but in the 
laboratory of at University College London." Even includes this 
paragraph, poorly modifLing the first sentence to read: "I came to know of [the petitioner] through his 
doctoral research, which he carried out in my [sic] at University College London." 
While the letters are signed, indicating that the references affirm the information in the letters, the use 
of nearly identical language suggests that the language is not their own. 
asserts generally that the petitioner has presented work on the biophysics of the TATA- 
binding protein transcri tion factor and the NF-KB transcription factor and has been published in 
prestigious journals. 
 continues, using nearly identical language to several other letters: 
[The petitioner's] research has helped push the forefront of understanding of the 
biophysical properties [of] transcription factor interactions with DNA. In particular, 
[the petitioner's] application of new techniques such as microcalorimetry and surface 
plasmon resonance, to characterize the thermodynamic binding properties of these 
interactions has lead to major advances in the understanding of their function. I 
consider him to be one of the leaders in my field. 
While counsel asserts that the urpose of the letters is to explain the complex subject matter of the 
petitioner's research, and most of the other references who use this language, provide no 
explanation as to the significance of the petitioner's doctoral research or how it has impacted the field 
by defining the "major advances" referenced in this paragraph. 
provides more detail into the significance of the petitioner's research. She explains that 
the petitioner was "one of' the first scientists to conduct a thorough thermodynamic characterization of 
a macromolecular interaction, the TATA-binding protein transcription factor, giving new insights into 
the role of solvent water in macromolecular interactions. asserts that these results are now 
"widely recognized" and that they "inspired the computer scientists to make algorithms that also 
considered the solvent water molecules because experimental evidence showed how important they 
were." According to , this area is now a "huge area of computational biology." 
Page 10 
explains that she recruited the petitioner to her laboratory based on his expertise in the 
emerging microcalorimetry and surface Plasmon resonance techniques as well as his experience in 
thermodynamics and kinetics of transcription factors. In laboratory, the petitioner 
focused on NF-KB, a family of transcription factors that plays a pivotal role in many disease states such 
as cancer, HIV and chronic inflammation. explains that despite the importance of this 
transcription family, little was known about the basic process of how these factors recognize DNA and 
are controlled. According to the petitioner generated critically important information on 
this pathway, such as revealing which parts of the inhibitor protein are folded in solution, quantitative 
binding data regarding sequestration and the dissociative properties of the inhibitor protein. 
- 
asserts that ths area of research is critical but underrepresented. The issue of whether 
similarly-trained workers are available in the United States, however, is an issue under the 
jurisdiction of the De artment of Labor. New York State Dep 't. of Transp., 22 I&N Dec. 2 15, 22 1 
(Cornm'r. 1998). hprovides no examples of how the petitioner's revelations are being 
applied in the field beyond her own laboratory. 
, a faculty member at Johns Hopkins University, asserts that he is familiar with the 
work and met the petitioner at a recent conference. 
 first addresses 
the petitioner's work with the inhibitor protein for NF-KB, asserting that the petitioner "applied an 
arsenal of biophysical methods, including a very innovative hydrogen exchange-mass spectroscopy 
method" to demonstrate that the protein is highly variable in its stability distribution, showing unique 
signs of heterogeneity, plasticity and partial unfolding. explains that these results are 
important, because the plasticity must be ''frozen out" when binding to NF-KB. concludes 
that this work "set the stage for understanding this critical binding reaction" but the only examples he 
provides of work building on these results are the petitioner's own studies. concludes that 
the original nature of the petitioner's work "suggests that many others have tried and failed." We are 
not persuaded that this assertion is relevant to the petitioner's eligibility for the exclusive classification 
sought. The vast majority of articles appearing in peer-reviewed publications are original in that 
journals rarely publish work that is not original. We are not persuaded that the original nature of the 
work alone demonstrates that it is any more significant than the vast amounts of new science being 
reported in the numerous scientific journals. 
The most detailed letter is from 
 a professor at the University of Maryland. Dr. 
asserts that she has "reviewed [the petitioner's] work and background and is capable of 
assessing the petitioner's credentials. She does not indicate that she was aware of the petitioner or his 
work prior to being contacted for a reference letter. 
 asserting in general that the 
petitioner's work is unique and "has already 
 of computational efforts as 
well as future research in other laboratories." 
 does not provide any examples of this next 
generation research or identify the laboratories in which it is occurring. 
More specifically, 
 explains that how strong and how fast proteins interact are two of the 
most important questions in the petitioner's field as this information is essential for the understanding 
of how diseases arise fiom mutation or mis-folding of proteins. discusses the petitioner's 
TATA binding protein research in 
 laboratory, characterizing it as "pioneerin 
first study of an archaeal DNA binding protein with microcalorimetry. According to d: 
petitioner's results using this process were groundbreaking because the petitioner demonstrated that 
fewer changes in the amino acid sequence of the protein were required for a complete reversal of the 
binding character than previously anticipated. opines that the results are significant in the 
pharmaceutical industry, making the drug development process more efficient. We acknowledge that 
the petitioner is now working for the pharmaceutical company Pfizer., a senior 
principal scientist at Pfizer, however, notes the petitioner's work with TATA binding proteins but does 
indicate that the petitioner is now using this work at Pfizer to improve drug development efficiency. 
Rather, repeats the claim contained verbatim in several letters that the petitioner's work 
"has already inspired the next generation of computational efforts." - Senior 
Director of Biochemical Pharmacology at Pfizer merely states that the petitioner is building on the 
work he performed at UCSD. 
 does not identify other pharmaceutical companies or 
academic laboratories using the petitioner's TATA binding protein results to improve drug 
development efficiency. 
then discusses the petitioner's investigation of the effect of water molecules at the interface 
of the protein-DNA complex. The petitioner's results in this area demonstrated that relatively small 
networks of water molecules could have large effects on the net thermodynamic properties. - 
concludes (emphasis removed): 
[The petitioner's] work became the foundation for the key hypothesis that local effects 
of the disruption of water networks could be transmitted to surrounding side chains and 
water molecules. The significant result of [the petitioner's] work on water molecules 
makes an important impact on the future of computational design of pharmaceuticals, 
by increasing the accuracy and predictive capabilities of computational models, thus 
accelerating and reducing the overall cost of drug development. 
Once again, appears to be speculating as to the future significance of the petitioner's work 
and provides no examples of how the petitioner's work had already impacted the pharmaceutical 
industry. 
~ext, discusses the petitioner's work with NF-KB. specifically, asserts that the 
petitioner used novel methods to "set the stage for the understanding of this critical binding reaction." 
In continuing to study this reaction, according to, the petitioner determined exactly which 
parts of the inhibitor protein contribute to binding, specifically, the unstructured regions. - 
explains that these results are important because two thirds of proteins include unstructured regions. 
concludes that this work is the first quantitative measurements of their kind in this system. 
While opines that this work has "wide ranging implications" and has "inspired the next 
generation of computational modeling experiments," she provides no examples of these next generation 
experiments. 
and other references note that the petitioner's work in the aggregate is highly cited. We 
acknowledge that the petitioner's work is consistently cited, with one article having been cited 60 
times. As discussed above, in a review article, cites two articles coauthored with the 
petitioner, one of which designated as of outstanding interest. also includes 
his coauthored work with the ~etitioner in his review article discussing; areas where isothermal titration 
- 
calorimetry (ITC) is making a significant contribution. In the body of this article, 
 asserts 
that, rather than demonstrating previously unpredicted results, the petitioner's 
previously published hypothesis that the inclusion of water molecules which interact in a 
macromolecular interface contributes to the negative ACp." also cites the petitioner's 
work in an article designed to "highlight work of interest and impact." 
We acknowledge that an independent research team at the University of Utah also positively reviewed 
the petitioner's work in the Journal of Molecular Recognition. In this 66-page article that includes over 
1,000 citations, the petitioner's work is characterized as one of ten research articles reviewed that 
describe "well-performed biosensor experiments." While this article suggests that the petitioner 
demonstrated technical skill in this research, the impact of the petitioner's results is not discussed. 
asserts that at Pfizer, the petitioner has "provided key experimental data that has led to the 
discovery of a several [sic] potentially new mechanism for cancer and vital disease." 
 does 
not explain the key data, the new mechanism or how Pfizer has advanced this research. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submits an invitation that 
predates the filing of the petition by five days to join the Molecular Interactions Research Group 
(MIRG), of the Association of Biomolecular Resource Facilities (ABRF). The petitioner submitted 
materials from www.wilu~edia.org as to the significance of ABRF and its research groups. With 
regard to information from Wikipedia, there are no assurances about the reliability of the content 
from this open, user-edited internet site.2 See Lamilem Badasa v. Michael Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909 
Online content from Wikipedia is subject to the following general disclaimer: 
WKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY. Wikipedia is an online open-content 
collaborative encyclopedia, that is, a voluntary association of individuals and groups working to 
develop a common resource of human knowledge. The structure of the project allows anyone with 
an Internet connection to alter its content. Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily 
been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or 
reliable information. . . . Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here. The 
content of any given article may recently have been changed, vandalized or altered by someone 
whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields. 
(gth Cir. 2008). While the invitation may reflect on the petitioner's skills, it is not clear that the 
invitation to join a research group is evidence of the petitioner's past contributions of major 
significance. 
While we acknowledge that the record contains some favorable evidence, positively reviewed and 
consistently cited articles that might support thoughtful reference letters from the petitioner's 
colleagues and more independent members of the field who have applied the petitioner's results or 
methods, the reference letters in this matter are highly general, do not adequately address the 
petitioner's impact or merely speculate as to how the petitioner's work may impact the pharmaceutical 
industry. 
On appeal, counsel questions how far must a new scientific discovery be widely implemented, asserting 
that the petitioner's discovery of what conditions cause cancer cells to grow faster should constitute a 
contribution of major significance. The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. 
Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1, 3 
n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). The record contains 
no discussion of the petitioner's work on cancer cells. If this work postdates the filing of the petition, it 
cannot be considered. See 8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
While the petitioner's research is no doubt of value, it can be argued that any research must be 
shown to be original and present some benefit if it is to receive funding and attention from the 
scientific community. Any research, in order to be accepted for graduation, publication or funding, 
must offer new and useful information to the pool of knowledge. It does not follow that every 
researcher who performs original research that adds to the general pool of knowledge has inherently 
made a contribution of major significance to the field as a whole. 
In light of the above, we uphold the director's finding that the petitioner has not established that he 
meets this criterion. Even if we accepted that the petitioner's citation record, the positive reviews of his 
work and the MIRG invitation serve to meet this criterion, the petitioner would only meet a second 
criterion. For the reasons discussed above and below, the record falls far short of establishing that the 
petitioner meets the necessary third criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the Jield, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The director concluded that the petitioner meets this criterion. Given the petitioner's authorship of 
consistently cited and positively reviewed scholarly articles, we affirm that conclusion. 
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki~edia:General disclaimer, accessed on August 6,2009, a copy of which 
is incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
Initially, counsel relies on the letters fiom 
 and praising the petitioner's 
contributions to his group at Pfizer. 
 asserts that the petitioner has "elevated our 
group to be one of the finest biochemist 
 & biophysics laboratories in the United States." We note 
that the record also contains "2004 grant application, which does not list the petitioner as 
one of the "key personnel." Where the petitioner is named as a postdoctoral fellow, reference is made 
to efforts "being made so that in as many cases as possible the trainees would work with more than one 
PI on the Program Project." Thus, the petitioner's role in this research was that of a "trainee." 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, counsel relies on the petitioner's invitation 
to join MIRG, where he was currently one of six members, and reiterates the assertions made by Dr. 
and 
 asserting that the director erroneously discounted the opinions of two "senior 
supervisors" at Pfizer. The director concluded that the petitioner had not demonstrated his actual role 
with MIRG and that the record lacked objective evidence of his leading or critical role elsewhere. 
On appeal, counsel reviews the previously submitted evidence. We have already considered the 
petitioner's contributions to the field above. At issue for this criterion are the role the petitioner was 
selected to fill and the reputation of the entity that selected him. In other words, the nature of the role 
itself must be indicative of or consistent with national or international acclaim. 
As stated above, the petitioner is not defined as key personnel at UCSD. While we acknowledge 
Pfizer's distinguished reputation, the record lacks sufficient information about the petitioner's role at 
Pfizer. While the petitioner lists the title "senior scientist" on the petition, neither nor Dr. 
provides the petitioner's actual title. Moreover, the record lacks an organizational chart revealing 
how many other scientists Pfizer employs. - indicates that his group includes 40 staff members 
including more than a dozen researchers with doctorate degrees. While Pfizer obviously must employ 
competent and creative scientists, the petitioner has not established that the petitioner's title at ~fizer 
represents a critical role at that company. As stressed by counsel, is a senior principal 
scientist, and is a senior director, both senior supervising positions. 
The petitioner received his invitation to join MIRG days before the petition was filed. It is not known 
when he accepted this invitation. The record lacks evidence that he had already performed a leading or 
critical role for MIRG as of the date of filing, the date as of which he must establish his eligibility. See 
8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
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, one of an unknown number of scientists at a major pharmaceutical company, 
relies on his coverage in review articles, his service as a manuscript reviewer and his publication and 
citation record. serves on the editorial board of two journals and the nominating 
committee for the Protein Society. 
 is Secretary of the Biophysical Society. Another 
reference, , is Associate Dean for the Graduate program in Biophysics at the 
Universidad Autonoma del Estado de Morelos in Mexico. Other references have similar credentials. 
Thus, it appears that the top level of the petitioner's field is higher than 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 a 
scientist 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 scientist, 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. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.