dismissed EB-1A Case: Gene Therapy

i i%brclbl.tedb 
prevent cl- unwarranted 
invasion Orpasonal privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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) 
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. 
u 
Sert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska Service 
Center, 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. 5 1 153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability in 
the sciences. 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 argues that the petitioner meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3). 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Pnority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are aliens 
described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics whch has been demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim 
and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive 
documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) have 
consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals seeking immigrant 
visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). As used in this 
section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that 
small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5@)(2). The specific 
requirements for supporting documents to establish that an alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and recognition in his or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show 
that she has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on October 5,2005, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as 
a research scientist in the field of gene therapy. At the time of filing, the petitioner was working as a 
Research Associate in Genetic Medicine with the Joan and Sanford I. Weill Medical College of Cornell 
University in the Department of Genetic Medicine. A September 21, 2006 letter from - 
Professor and Chairman, Department of Genetic Medicine, Weill Medical College, Cornell University, to the 
petitioner states that she assumed "additional administrative responsibilities with respect to the Belfer Gene 
Therapy Core Facility as Manager, Experimental Animal Core" effective August 28,2006. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. €j 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized 
award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, at least three of 
which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. A petitioner, however, cannot establish eligibility for this classification merely by 
submitting evidence that simply relates to at least three criteria at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3). In determining 
whether the petitioner meets a specific criterion, the evidence itself must be evaluated in terms of whether it is 
indicative of or consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. A lower evidentiary standard 
would not be consistent with the regulatory definition of "extraordinary ability" as "a level of expertise 
indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor." 8 C.F.R. €j 204.5(h)(2). The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
In a November 9,2006 letter submitted in response to the director's request for evidence, counsel argues that the 
petitioner's pending patent with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (number and 
research grants meet this criterion. Qualifjmg for a research grant and filing a patent application do not constitute 
the petitioner's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in her 
field of endeavor. The petitioner's pending U.S. patent represents a request for the exclusive right to produce 
or sell an original invention for a specified time period rather than a prize or award for excellence in the field. 
With regard to the research grant submitted by the petitioner (number we cannot ignore 
that rather than the petitioner, was identified as the "Principal Investigator" for the grant. 
In regard to the research grants for which the petitioner's employer applied and received funding, it is noted 
that research grants simply fund a scientist's work. The past achievements of the principal investigator are a 
factor in grant proposals. The funding institution has to be assured that the investigator is capable of 
performing the proposed research. Nevertheless, a research grant is principally designed to fund future 
scientific research, and is not a national or international award to honor or recognize past achievement. 
Furthermore, we note that a substantial amount of scientific research is funded by research grants from a 
variety of public and private sources. Therefore, we do not find that the receipt of a research grant 
automatically places a research scientist at the very top of his or her field. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classiJication 
is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, the petitioner must show that 
the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for admission to membership. 
Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a given field, minimum education or 
Page 4 
experience, standardized test scores, grade point average, recommendations by colleagues or current 
members, or payment of dues, do not satisfy this criterion as such requirements do not constitute outstanding 
achievements. Further, the overall prestige of a given association is not determinative; the issue here is 
membership requirements rather than the association's overall reputation. 
The petitioner submitted a document printed fiom the European Society of Gene Therapy (ESGT) internet 
site reflecting her registration for membership in 2005. The document indicates that the petitioner authorized 
a "membership fee" of $130 to be charged to her credit card. Under the heading "Conditions," the document 
states: "I wish to apply for membership in the EGST." The record, however, includes no membership 
credential fiom the EGST showing that the petitioner was actually admitted to membership. Further, while 
the petitioner submitted general information regarding the EGST, there is no evidence (such as membership 
bylaws or official admission requirements) showing that this society requires outstanding achievements of its 
members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in the petitioner's field. 
The petitioner also submitted information printed from the online membership directory of the American 
Society of Gene Therapy (ASGT) reflecting that she is a member. The information submitted by the 
petitioner, however, does not identify her specific class of membership. In response to the director's request 
for evidence, the petitioner submitted Article IV of the membership bylaws for the ASGT reflecting three 
classes of members: Active Members, Associate Members, and Emeritus Members (those age 65 and over). 
According to the ASGT's bylaws, "[i]ndividuals who have manifested an interest in any discipline important 
to gene therapy as evidenced by work in the field are eligible for Active Membership." Further, 
"[i]ndividuals who are postdoctoral fellows or graduate students in gene therapy research programs are 
eligible for Associate Membership." We cannot conclude that "work in the field" in a "discipline important 
to gene therapy" or participation "in gene therapy research programs" are tantamount to "outstanding 
achievements" in the field. 
In this case, there is no evidence showing that the ASGT or the ESGT require outstanding achievements of 
their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in the petitioner's field. As such, the 
petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which clmsiJication is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
In order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the petitioner and, as stated in the 
regulations, be printed in professional or major trade publications or other major media. To qualify as major 
media, the publication should have significant national or international distribution. Some newspapers, such as 
the New York Times, nominally serve a particular locality but would qualify as major media because of significant 
national distribution, unlike small local community papers.' 
' Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. For example, 
an article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax County, Virginia, for 
instance, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
The petitioner submitted an article entitled "Avoiding Malignancy with Trans-Splicing Gene Therapy" in the 
September 2004 issue of 
 but the article is not primarily about her. This article 
discusses a study lead by 
 and quotes him extensively. The article only mentions the 
petitioner's name in passing as one of six researchers workrng under - 
The petitioner also submitted citation indices from Web of Science demonstrating scores of cites to her 
published articles. Regarding the scientific articles that merely reference the petitioner's published work, we 
note that the plain language of this regulatory criterion requires that the published material be "about the alien." 
In this case, the articles citing the petitioner's work are primarily about the authors' work, not the footnoted 
material identifying the petitioner. With regard to ths criterion, a footnoted reference to the alien's work without 
evaluation is of minimal probative value. Further, we note that the articles citing the petitioner's work similarly 
referenced numerous other authors. The submitted citations to the petitioner's work do not discuss the merits 
of her work, her standing in the field, any significant impact that her work has had on the field, or any other 
aspects of her work consistent with his sustained national or international acclaim. The numerous citations of 
the petitioner's work are more relevant to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3)(v) and (vi) and will be further 
addressed later in ths decision. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she 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 specijication for which classification is sought. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(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." Evidence of the petitioner's participation as a 
judge must be evaluated in terms of these requirements. The weight given to evidence submitted to fulfill the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3)(iv), 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. 5 204.5(h)(2). For example, evaluating the 
work of accomplished professors on a national panel of experts is of far greater probative value than evaluating 
the work of students or one's coworkers. 
The petitioner submitted a July 24, 2005 letter from 
 Professor of Medicine and 
Immunology, and Director, Arthritis and Tissue Destruction Project, Hospital for Special Surgery, an affiliate 
of the New York Presbyterian Hospital and the Weill Medical College of Cornell University, stating: 
I requested [the petitioner] review and evaluate manuscripts submitted by research scientists to the 
Journal of Immunology to ensure that the submissions revealed novel concepts, were of interest to the 
scientific community, and demonstrated a high level of quality. [The petitioner] was meticulous in 
her appraisals and ensured the high standards of the journal were met. 
The petitioner also submitted a July 29, 2005 letter from 
 Assistant Director of the Belfer 
Gene Therapy Core Facility and Research Professor of Genetic Medicine at Weill Medical College, Cornell 
University, stating: "I have repeatedly requested [the petitioner's] assistance in reviewing articles submitted 
by research scientists to the esteemed journals Human Gene Therapy, Gene Therapy and Molecular Therapy." 
The record, however, includes no documentary evidence to support 
 and 
 assertions 
regarding the petitioner's participation as a reviewer. Going on record without supporting documentary 
evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sofici, 
22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. 
Comm. 1972)). For example, there is no correspondence from the editorial staff of the Journal of 
Immunology, Human Gene Therapy, Gene Therapy, or Molecular Therapy acknowledging the petitioner's 
participation as a reviewer. Nor is there documentary evidence of the petitioner's actual manuscript 
evaluations or information identifying the names and the positions of the individuals whose papers were 
evaluated. On appeal, counsel acknowledges that the preceding journals "did not directly ask [the petitioner] 
to evaluate manuscripts." 
Even if the petitioner were to submit substantive evidence of her participation in the peer review process for the 
aforementioned journals, we note that peer review is a routine element of the process by which articles are 
selected for publication in scientific journals. Occasional participation in the peer review process does not 
automatically demonstrate that the petitioner has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of 
her field. Reviewing manuscripts is recognized as a professional obligation of researchers who publish 
themselves in scientific journals. Normally a journal's editorial staff will enlist the assistance of numerous 
professionals in the field who agree to review submitted papers. It is common for a publication to ask several 
reviewers to review a manuscript and to offer comments. The publication's editorial staff may accept or 
reject any reviewer's comments in determining whether to publish or reject submitted papers. Without 
evidence that sets the petitioner apart from others in her field, such as evidence that she has reviewed an 
unusually large number of articles, received independent requests from a substantial number of journals (as 
opposed to requests delegated to her by her superiors), or served in an editorial position for a distinguished 
journal in the same manner as Professor Paul ~obbins; we cannot conclude that she meets this criterion. 
On appeal, counsel states: 
[The petitioner] is currently the Manager and Core Director of the experimental Animal Core in the 
Belfer Gene Therapy Core Facility at Weill Medical College of Cornell University. In this role, she 
is responsible for - i.e., 'judges' - all gene therapy research done at this prestigious institution. 
Therefore, she judges the work of other scientists on a daily basis. 
The September 21, 2006 letter from 
 to the petitioner states that she assumed "additional 
administrative responsibilities with elfer Gene Therapy Core Facility as Manager, 
Experimental Animal Core" effective August 28, 2006. Thus, the petitioner's appointment to manager at this 
facility occurred subsequent to the petition's filing date. A petitioner, however, must establish eligibility at 
2 
For example, Professor Robbins states that he served as an associate editor for Gene Therapy and Cancer Research. 
the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. $8 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Regl. Comrnr. 
1971). Accordingly, the AAO will not consider this appointment in this proceeding. 
Counsel fiu-ther states: "Prior to her current position, from 2000 - 2002, [the petitioner] served as Co- 
Director of the Gene Transfer Facility at the Hospital of Special Surgery. As Co-Director, [the petitioner] 
supervised other researchers and evaluated research projects in the Gene Transfer Facility." 
We find that the above duties were inherent to the petitioner's positions as Manager of the Experimental Animal 
Core in the Belfer Gene Therapy Core Facility and as Co-Director of the Gene Transfer Facility at the 
Hospital of Special Surgery. There is no evidence that the petitioner judged the work of others in her field in 
a manner significantly outside the general duties of the aforementioned positions and consistent with 
sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of her field. Duties or activities which nominally 
fall under a given regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3) do not demonstrate national or international 
acclaim if they are inherent or routine to a particular job assignment, or in a substantial proportion of 
positions within one's occupation.3 The petitioner's performance of supervisory duties as required by her 
employment is not tantamount to judging the work of others in the field and cannot suffice to meet this regulatory 
criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signijicance in the field. 
The petitioner submitted several letters of support discussing her research contributions. 
 We cite 
representative examples here. 
Senior Scientist, Molecular Medicine Program, Ottawa Health Research Institute, Canada, 
states: 
[The petitioner's] achievements to the field of gene therapy are numerous. There are many examples, 
but I will discuss one that is most closely related to my field of specialty. Through [the petitioner's] 
expertise, she has made great strides in the discovery of a vaccine against Pseudomonas aeruginosa 
in patients with cystic fibrosis, which is the major cause of death for these individuals. Her innovative 
study evaluated the immunogenic and protective properties of a novel adenovirus vector expressing a 
small part of the P. aeruginosa outer membrane protein. Through [the petitioner's] immunization 
process, all those vaccinated animals in the study survived the Pseudomonas challenge. Previously, 
the standard vaccination had failed to induce sufficient protection against pseudomonas infection; 
therefore, [the petitioner's] findings are groundbreaking, as well as truly remarkable for the treatment 
of patients with cystic fibrosis who are affected by acute P. aeruginosa infections. 
- , Professor of Hematology at the University of Genova, Italy, states: 
This is true with all duties inherent to an occupation. For example, publication is inherent to scientific researchers. 
Thus, the mere publication of scholarly articles cannot demonstrate national acclaim. The petitioner must demonstrate 
that the articles have garnered national or international attention, for example, by being widely cited. 
There are several indications that the power of the immune system can be harnessed to help in 
treating neuroblastoma; and [the petitioner] has decided to effectively enhance the potency of cellular 
immunity by an entirely novel strategy. In fact, [the petitioner] designed an innovative fusion receptor 
that conserves the antigen-binding site of an antibody and fuses it genetically to the signaling domain 
of the T cell co-receptor CD28. Introducing this co-receptor into primary human lymphocytes reveals 
that the advantage of this strategy is a sustained stimulation and expansion of tumor-specific 
cytotoxic T cells after tumor antigen engagement. The results are original and encouraging: indeed, 
[the petitioner's] research is the cornerstone for understanding important aspects of immune 
competent cells in this disease and developing treatments and cures. 
, Professor of the Departments of Molecular Genetics and Biochemistry and Orthopaedics, 
University of Pittsburgh, states: 
[The petitioner] has made original contributions of major significance to the field, such as her 
breakthrough research "Activation conditions determine susceptibility of murine primary T 
lymphocytes to retroviral infections," which were published in the Journal of Gene Medicine. [The 
petitioner] developed the first procedure to establish animal models when an adoptive transfer of 
transduced T cells is required. A high transduction efficiency rate of T cells is absolutely essential to 
developing genetic therapies for autoimmune and oncology diseases. [The petitioner's] findings are 
truly momentous and are widely performed by leading scientists to analyze expansion procedures and 
gene transfer conditions for primary animal and human cells to achieve sufficient gene transfer in 
premier institutions and organizations worldwide. 
Because of her innovation research and expertise in lymphoid and myeloid cells, [the petitioner's] 
work has led to a critical breakthrough. She currently has a patent pending for her revolutionary work 
dealing with fusion proteins of a single chain antibody and CD28. She discovered that the 
introduction of the receptor CD28 by retroviral gene transfer into human T cells improves tumor and 
metastasis recognition, their eradication, as well as extending survival of tumor specific cells. Her 
discovery is a model for the treatment of patients with progressive inoperable neuoblastoma and 
metastasized tumor loci. 
, Principal Investigator, Department of Molecular Medicine and Experimental 
Immunology, University of Bonn, Germany, states: 
[The petitioner's] extraordinary work in the field of genetic manipulation of lymphoid and myeloid 
cells has made groundbreaking contributions to biomedical science. For example, [the petitioner's] 
detailed study "Activation conditions determine susceptibility of murine primary T lymphocytes to 
retroviral infections," (Journal of Gene Medicine) received extensive worldwide interest, as it was the 
first successful study of the procedure to achieve sufficient gene transfer into primary T cells. Her 
scientific work is of major importance and has had an enormous influence on researchers in the field 
of Gene Therapy because of its dramatic implications to create therapies . . . . 
[The petitioner] employed a novel technique "trans-splicing" at the mRNS level to ensure a tissue 
specific and controlled CD40L expression and exclude the risk of a lymphoma development. The 
results of [the petitioner's] study have dramatic implications as the gene therapy strategy successfully 
corrected the disease without increasing malignancy risk. Besides the importance of [the petitioner's] 
study has for the immune disorder, her technique has implications for treating a wide range of genetic 
illnesses. 
Professor and Head of the Laboratory of Molecular Cell Biology at the Rockefeller 
University, New York, states: 
[The petitioner] is responsible for several significant scientific achievements, including the discovery 
that the transcription factor STAT3 is important in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). During [the 
petitioner's] service as Co-Director of the Gene Transfer Facility at the Hospital of Special Surgery, 
she researched genetically modifying human synoviocytes from patients with RA. RA synoviocytes 
show the features of uncontrolled growth to pro-inflammatory cytokines present in the inflamed joints 
of patients. In [the petitioner's] investigation, she introduced a dominant negative form of the 
transcription factor STAT3 into these cells and successfully abolished their response to growth 
factors. The results are highly significant and this novel approach to modify synoviocytes as a 
potential therapy for RA-patients has wide clinical applications in the treatment of RA and other auto- 
immundiseases. 
Through [the petitioner's] expertise, specifically in lymphoid and myeloid cells, she has made 
scientific advances to our knowledge and our ability to utilize gene therapy strategies. A long- 
standing goal of cancer research has been to stimulate the immunological rejection of tumors. [The 
petitioner] has brought scientists significantly closer to this goal through her discovery that T cells 
encoded in a fusion protein that incorporates a single chain antibody have enhanced survival when 
reintroduced to an in vivo environment. Because of [the petitioner's] discovery, she has a patent 
application pending, which is a model for the treatment of patients with progressive inoperable 
neuoblastoma and metastasized tumor loci. 
, Professor and Head of the Division of Rheumatology at the University of Washington 
School of Medicine, states: 
I have never worked with [the petitioner]; however, I am very familiar with her research and 
accomplishments. I first became aware of her extraordinary research upon reading her publications in 
the Journal of Experimental Medicine and Nature Biotechnology. Both of these pieces focus on the 
ability to efficiently manipulate primary lymphoid and myeloid cells in a genetic fashion, in order to 
make them more antigen-specific. Manipulating primary cells ex vivo with the purpose of adoptively 
transferring them back into the host was, until then, a major burden in the development of useful 
biological treatments for many diseases. [The petitioner's] findings have made a key contribution to 
the gene therapy field of research. 
[The petitioner] has shown great expertise and has received international recognition for her 
contributions to the field of gene transfer in primary immune cells. She successfully developed an 
exciting new strategy to inhibit the uncontrolled growth of primary RA synoviocytes by introducing a 
dominant negative form of the transcription factor STAT3 into these cells to abolish the response to 
pro-inflammatory cytokines secreted by T cells and macrophages. STAT3 is one of the major cellular 
proteins that promote proliferation and survival of cells from different origins in response to many 
cytokines (1 11-6) and growth factors (EGF and PDGF) during acute synovitis. In her groundbreaking 
article "Gene transfer of dominant-negative STAT3 induces apoptosis of RA Synovial Fibroblasts," 
published in the prestigious Journal of Immunology, [the petitioner] revealed that these transduced 
synoviocytes from RA patients, normally prone to grow in an uncontrolled manner, are reverted in 
their phenotype and undergo apoptosis. It is due to [the petitioner's] highly specialized skills and 
progressive research techniques that she discovered a new strategy to stop the uncontrolled growth of 
synoviocytes of RApatients in a pro-inflammatory environment. 
In support of the preceding experts' statements, the petitioner submitted documentation showing scores of 
independent cites to her published findings.4 These citation indices are solid evidence that other researchers 
have been influenced by the petitioner's work and are familiar with it. This unusually large number of 
citations corroborates the experts' statements that the petitioner has made contributions of major significance 
in her field. The record reflects that the petitioner's original scientific contributions are important not only to 
the research institutions where she has worked, but throughout the greater field as well. Leading scientists 
from around the world have acknowledged the value of the petitioner's work and its major significance to the 
field of gene therapy. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien Ir authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of her authorship of multiple articles appearing in publications such as 
Journal of Experimental Medicine, Journal of Biological Chemistry, Nature Medicine, and The Journal of 
Immunology. The petitioner also submitted evidence of scores of articles that cite to her work. These 
numerous citations demonstrate the significance of the petitioner's articles to the greater field. Therefore, the 
petitioner has established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has peflormed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
For example, the petitioner's initial submission included citation indices fi-om Web of Science showing that her 
published research has been cited at least 141 times. 
In order to establish that she performed a leading or critical role for an organization or establishment with a 
distinguished reputation, the petitioner must establish the nature of her role within the entire organization or 
establishment and the reputation of the organization or establishment. 
On appeal, counsel states: 
[The petitioner] is currently the Manager and Core Director of the Experimental Animal Core in the 
Belfer Gene Therapy Core Facility at Weill Medical College of Comell University. In this position, 
the [petitioner] manages the crucial Experimental Animal Core with Weill Medical College's gene 
therapy research facility. US. News & World Report ranks Weill Medical College as the nation's 15~ 
best medical school for research. 
The record adequately demonstrates that Weill Medical College is an institution with a distinguished 
reputation, but there is no evidence as to the reputation of the Experiment ore managed by the 
petitioner. Nevertheless, according to the September 21, 2006 letter from to the petitioner, she 
assumed "additional administrative responsibilities with respect to the Belfer Gene Therapy Core Facility as 
Manager, Experimental Animal Core" effective August 28, 2006.~ As discussed previously, the petitioner's 
appointment to manager occurred subsequent to the petition's filing date. A petitioner, however, must 
establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 
49. Accordingly, the AAO will not consider the petitioner's role as manager for the Experimental Animal 
Core in this proceeding. Further, the petitioner has not established how her role as research associate 
differentiated her from other researchers at Weill Medical College, let alone its more senior faculty (including 
tenured professors).6 
Counsel further states: 
[Flrom 2000 - 2002, [the petitioner] served as Co-Director of the Gene Transfer Facility at the 
Hospital of Special Surgery (HSS). As Co-Director, [the petitioner] held a leadership role, directing 
the Gene Transfer Facility. HSS is among the top-ranked hospitals in the world. US. News & World 
Report ranks HSS #2 hospital in the nation for orthopedics, #3 in the nation for rheumatology, and 
#23 in the nation for neurology and neurosurgery. 
The record adequately demonstrates that the Hospital for Special Surgery is an institution with a distinguished 
reputation, but there is no evidence as to the reputation of Gene Transfer Facility for which the petitioner 
served as co-director. Nor is there evidence showing that the petitioner's work as co-director of the Gene 
Transfer Facility was equivalent to performing in a leading or critical role for the hospital. The record lacks 
evidence distinguishing the petitioner's role from that of the other managers and researchers at this hospital, 
including its senior faculty. 
This letter identifies the petitioner's position at Weill Medical College as a "Research Associate in Genetic Medicine." 
A co 
 arison of the petitioner's position with that of her superiors at Weill Medical College (such as Professors 
and *) indicates that the very top of her field is a level above her present level of achievement. 
There is no evidence that the petitioner was responsible for the success or standing of Weill Medical College or 
the Hospital for Special Surgery to a degree consistent with the meaning of "leading or critical role" and 
indicative of sustained national or international acclaim. As such, the petitioner has not established that she 
meets this criterion. 
In this case, we find that the petitioner meets only two of the regulatory criteria, three of which are required to 
establish eligibility. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate her receipt of a major, 
internationally recognized award, or that she meets at least three of the criteria that must be satisfied to 
establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
While CIS has approved an 0-1 nonimmigrant visa petition filed on behalf of the petitioner, that prior approval 
does not preclude CIS fiom denylng 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 CIS 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). 
The AAO is not required to approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not been demonstrated, merely 
because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See e.g. Matter of Church Scientology International, 
19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm. 1988). It would be absurd to suggest that CIS 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 has approved a nonimmigrant petition 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. 5 1 (2001). 
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 or 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. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. !j 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.