dismissed EB-1A Case: Immunology

IdaabKytng data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal prr v ac \ 
- 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of IIomeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office ofAdministrative Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: SRC 08 800 13483 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 
OCT 2 8 2009 
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. $ 1153(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. $ 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 9 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
' Perry Rhew 
*hl Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
SRC 08 800 13483 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in the sciences, pursuant to 
section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 8 1153(b)(l)(A). The 
director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim 
necessary to qualifL for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief and additional evidence. In general, counsel asserts that the director 
applied the wrong evidentiary standard. Specifically, counsel asserts that the director's conclusion that 
the petitioner failed to "clearly establish eligibility" suggests that the director used a higher standard of 
proof than the appropriate "preponderance of the evidence" standard. 
Section 29 1 of the Act provides: 
Whenever any person makes application for a visa or any other document required for 
entry, or makes application for admission, or otherwise attempts to enter the United 
States, the burden of proof shall be upon such person to establish that he is eligible to 
receive such visa or such document, or is not inadmissible under any provis'ion of this 
Act, and, if an alien, that he is entitled to the nonimmigrant; immigrant, special 
immigrant, immediate relative, or refugee status claimed, as the case may be. 
The law goes on to assert that the evidence must establish eligibility "to the satisfaction" of the 
adjudicating officer. This burden is confirmed in Matter of Soo Hoo, 1 1 I&N Dec. 15 1 (BIA 1965) and 
Matter of Brantigan, 11 I&N Dec. 493 (BIA 1966). While the director used the phrase "clearly 
establish" instead of "preponderance of the evidence," the director appears to be using the common 
usage of the word "clearly" as opposed to articulating a higher standard of proof, such as "clear and 
convincing." The AAO finds that the director's use of the phrase "clearly establish" was innocent of 
any intent to hold the petitioner to a higher standard of proof and constitutes harmless error, at worst. 
Regardless, for the reasons discussed above, we do not find that the petitioner has established his 
eligibility for this exclusive classification by a preponderance of the evidence. Our conclusion, reached 
by considering the evidence under the individual criteria, is consistent with an analysis of the evidence 
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 -- 
SRC 08 800 13483 
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 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. $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. 5 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. 
It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that he has sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top level. 
According to Part 6 of the petition, this petition seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with 
extraordinary ability as a postdoctoral fellow. Postdoctoral positions are temporary positions that offer 
specialized research experience. See http://www.bls.aov/oco/ocos047.htm#training (accessed October 
22, 2009 and incorporated into the record of proceeding). While neither the statute nor the regulations 
preclude an individual still in the training stages of his career from establishing eligibility, we will not 
narrow the petitioner's field to recent graduates. As stated above, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(2) provides that the petitioner must establish that he is is one of that small percentage who 
have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor, including in comparison with the most experienced 
and renowned members of the field. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international 
recognized award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, at 
least three of which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualify 
as an alien of extraordinary ability. The director concluded that the petitioner meets the judging 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and we will not withdraw that finding. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
$204.5(h)(3), however, states that a petitioner must meet at least three of the ten regulatory criteria set 
SRC 08 800 13483 
Page 4 
forth in that provision. The petitioner has submitted evidence that, he claims, meets the following 
additional criteria under 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(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 jeld for which classiJication is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
Initially, counsel asserted that the petitioner meets this criterion through his inclusion in for-profit 
biographical directories such as Strathmore S Who's Who and 2000 Outstanding Scientists, press 
releases in NewsRx prepared by the journals that published the petitioner's own work, links to his work 
on the websites of professional associations in his field, an abstract of his work included in the "In this 
Issue" section of the Journal of Immunology and citations of the petitioner's work by other researchers. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, counsel noted that the petitioner has been 
included in additional for-profit directories, including 2000 Outstanding Intellectuals of the 21"' 
Century, 2008; Marquis Who S Who in America, 2009; Great Minds of the 21"' Century and 
Cam bridge 's Who 's Who. 
The director concluded that the materials submitted to meet this criterion did not meet the requirements 
set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Counsel does not contest this conclusion on 
appeal. 
The promotional materials for Strathmore S Who S Who indicate that it is an annual 2000-page 
directory that purportedly is limited to those who have demonstrated leadership and achievement in 
their occupation, industry or profession but permits self-nomination. The letter from 2000 Outstanding 
Intellectuals reveals that the publishing company sells books and even awards to those included in its 
volumes, revealing that it is a vanity press-type publication. The petitioner was only included in the 
remaining biographical directories after the date of filing. Thus, those inclusions cannot be considered 
evidence of his eligibility as of the date of filing. See 8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of 
Katigbak, 4 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l. Comm'r. 1971). That said, the record contains no evidence that 
these biographical directories, which appear to also include thousands of other professionals, are any 
more significant than the two discussed above. 
Significantly, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires evidence of the author, revealing that 
the identity of the author is relevant and material. The inclusion of the petitioner's own 
autobiographical blurb in a for-profit vanity press-type publication along with thousands of other 
professionals cannot serve to meet this criterion. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted information from 
the website of NewsRx. The materials indicate that the New York Times characterized NewsRx as "the 
world's largest producer of weekly health information." Other major media reference the publication 
1 
 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
SRC 08 800 13483 
Page 5 
as comprehensive and extensive. The materials do not explain how News& selects its topics and, in 
fact, indicate that the publication utilizes an Artificial Intelligence Journalist rather than human 
journalists who investigate recent research or editors who select which research will be covered. As 
stated above, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires that the published material include 
the identity of the author. The "articles" in News& are actually press releases prepared and authored 
by the journals publishing the petitioner's work rather than independent journalists. Moreover, the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires evidence of published material about the petitioner. 
Compare 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(i)(3)(i)(C) (requiring evidence of published material about the alien's work). 
The press releases in News& are not "about" the petitioner relating to his work but abstracts of the 
petitioner's work. Similarly, the inclusion of a link to the petitioner's work on the website of the 
National Multiple Sclerosis Society is not authored published material about the petitioner. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientlJic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signijicance in the$eld. 
Counsel has asserted throughout the proceedings that the petitioner's publications, including an 
article highlighted in the same issue in which it appeared, and reference letters, including letters from 
independent members of the petitioner's field, demonstrate that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
On appeal, counsel relies on a non-precedent decision by this office in support of the proposition that 
the director did not afford sufficient weight to the citations of the petitioner's work. While 8 C.F.R. 
fj 103.3(c) provides that AAO precedent decisions are binding on all USCIS employees in the 
administration of the Act, unpublished decisions are not similarly binding. We will, however, 
consider the citations below. 
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. 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 to gauge the impact of the 
petitioner's work. 
The regulations contain a separate criterion regarding the authorship of published articles. 8 C.F.R. 
$204.5(h)(3)(vi). We will not presume that evidence relating to or even meeting the scholarly articles 
criterion is presumptive evidence that the petitioner also meets this criterion. To hold otherwise would 
render meaningless the statutory requirement for extensive evidence or the regulatory requirement that 
a petitioner meet at least three separate criteria. See also Kazarian v. USCIS, 2009 WL 2836453, *6 
(9' Cir. 2009) (publications and presentations are insufficient to meet the regulatory criterion at 8 
C.F.R. §204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that they constitute contributions of major significance). 
SRC 08 800 13483 
Page 6 
The opinions of experts in the field, 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 (Reg71. 
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 the most persuasive. 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. Vague, solicited 
letters from local colleagues or letters that do not specifically identify contributions or how those 
contributions have influenced the field are insufficient. Kazarian, 2009 WL 2836453 at *5. 
The petitioner received his Ph.D. from the Institute of Biochemistry and Cell Biology, Shanghai 
Institutes for Biological Sciences, in 2004. While studying for his Ph.D., the petitioner authored (as 
first author) his only moderately cited article, which addressed the pertussis toxin and dendritic cells. 
He then accepted a postdoctoral fellow position at Northwestern University, where he remained as of 
the date of filing. 
The petitioner submitted two letters from U.S. researchers asserting that they collaborated with the 
petitioner on his Ph.D. research although their names do not appear as coauthors on any of the articles 
he authored while a Ph.D. student. - an associate professor of immunology at the 
University of Texas' M.D. Anderson Cancer Center whose curriculum vitae shows no recent 
experience in China, asserts that he "observed [the petitioner] throughout his PhD study" and 
collaborated on research projects regarding bystander activism and gene mutations involved in 
autoimmune pathogenesis. - explains the significance of dendritic cells, noting that they take 
pieces of foreign particles such as bacteria or viruses and alert the body to begin an immune response. 
In autoimmune diseases such as multiples sclerosis and lupus, however, dendritic cells can overexcite 
the immune system, causing the body to attack itself. In the case of bystander activation, pertussis toxin 
causes dendritic cells to overexcite, leading to autoimmune diseases. While - acknowledges 
that the role of the pertussis toxin in activating dendritic cells was previously known, he explains that 
SRC 08 800 13483 
Page 7 
the etitioner was the first to examine the cellular and molecular mechanisms involved. According to 
dh , the petitioner discovered that dendritic cells stimulated by pertussis toxin can substitute for 
the toxin and can induce the immune system to respond as it would to the toxin, essentially driving 
dendritic cells to become "supercharged cells which over-excite the immune system." asserts 
that these findings "form the cornerstone for scientists and corporations worldwide to exploit the 
biological power of dendritic cells to generate modified vaccines, and to harness the therapeutic 
potential of dendritic cells." notes that this work was published in the Journal of 
Immunology and highlighted in the same issue of that journal along with at least three other articles in 
the issue. 
In addition to the petitioner's work on the pertussis toxin, 
 also addresses the petitioner's work 
on gene mutations associated with autoimmune diseases, which focused on the deficiency of interferon- 
gamma as the causation of dendritic cells to travel more efficiently to the spleen and lymph nodes 
where they interact with T cells to unnecessarily activate the immune system. According to - 
the petitioner found that supplying interferon-gamma to subject mice enabled them to resist the 
induction of autoimmune diseases. characterizes this work as a "breakthrough that will 
allow scientists to explore the therapeutic "potential" of interferon-gamma. 
while asserts that the medical community has "paid attention" to the petitioner's publications 
and presentations, his only example is a single request for a reprint of one of the petitioner's reports. 
-provides no examples of independent research laboratories pursuing therapeutic therapies for 
autoimmune disorders using the petitioner's work as the foundation of their work. 
a professor at Northwestern University who has coauthored a recent article with the 
petitioner, also claims to have collaborated with the petitioner on two of his Ph.D. projects. As stated 
above, 
 is not a listed coauthor on the petitioner's published 
discussion of the petitioner's Ph.D. work is similar to that provided by 
discusses the petitioner's work at Northwestern University. Specifically, 
 explains that the 
petitioner's aim was to identi@ the cellular and molecular mechanisms which determine susceptibility 
to virally induced autoimmune diseases, which varies fiom person to person. According to - 
the petitioner examined the possibility that dendritic cells may respond differently in resistant and 
susceptible individuals, which the petitioner tested by using the Theiler's virus-induced demyelinating 
disease as a model for multiple sclerosis. asserts that the petitioner confirmed his hypothesis, 
demonstrating that resistant mice have dendritic cells which can prompt an immune response to 
Theiler's virus while susceptible mice have dendritic cells which self-destruct or are weakened in the 
presence of this virus. 
concludes that the petitioner is "a driving force behind research efforts to understand the role 
of dendritic cells in the immune system, and his findings, publications and presentations at top-tiered 
journals and well-respected conference presentations indicate that he is an exceptional scientist and 
researcher." - however, provides no examples of independent laboratories that are using the 
petitioner's results as the foundation of their own research. 
SRC 08 800 13483 
Page 8 
In his second letter submitted in response to the director's request for additional evidence, = 
discusses research that appears to 
 the filing of the petition. This work cannot be considered 
evidence of the petitioner's eligibility as of that date. See 8 C.F.R. $tj 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of 
Katigbak, 4 I&N Dec. at 49. 
another professor at Northwestern University, provides similar information to 
that discussed above, asserting that his own laboratory is using the petitioner's animal model of 
Theiler's virus induced demyeiinating disease, similar in many respects to multiple sclerosis. This 
application of the petitioner's model, however, does not demonstrate his impact beyond Northwestern 
University. 
The petitioner also initially submitted three letters from independent researchers. 
 a 
professor at Harvard Medical School, asserts that he knows the petitioner through his research 
publications. singles out the petitioner's Ph.D. research with the pertussis toxin. Noting 
that methods designed to prevent pertussis toxin from supercharging dendritic cells stifles the 
development of the body's autoimmune disease, concludes that the petitioner's study 
"clarified the cellular target of the pertussis toxin for researchers engaged in similar work worldwide." 
asserts that the more knowledge scientists have about the immune system, the more likely 
they are to control its response. 
 All published research, however, adds to the general pool of 
knowledge. Not every published article is a contribution of major significance. Kazarian, 2009 WL 
2836453 at *6. does not claim to be utilizing the petitioner's work as the foundation of his 
own research and does not identify any independent laboratories that are doing so. 
then discusses the petitioner's work with gene mutations, concluding that the petitioner 
"composed one of the most comprehensive data sets to indicate that interferon-gamma is an integral 
part of resistance of the induction of autoimmune diseases." characterizes this work as "a 
conceptual leap in using interferon-gamma to help the body to resist the onset of autoimmune disease 
but does not explain how this work has already impacted the field. 
a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, provides similar information to that 
discussed above, asserting that she invited the petitioner to give her laboratory a seminar on dendritic 
cell biology. Thus, it is clear that she views the petitioner's work as interesting and relevant to those 
working in her laboratory. A contribution of major significance, however, should be evidenced by a 
demonstrable impact in the field on a wide scale. does not assert that her laboratory has 
adopted the petitioner's model or has otherwise been impacted by the petitioner's work such that his 
work can be deemed a contribution of major significance. 
provides similar information to that discussed above, asserting that the petitioner's work with the 
pertussis toxin has identified that toxin "as a powerful adjuvant for immunizations that should give rise 
* SRC 08 800 13483 
Page 9 
to protective type 1 T cell-mediated protection, such as against tuberculosis.'-does 
not claim to be pursuing such an immunization and does not identify any laboratory that is. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted a letter fiom 
of Immunology at Focus Diagnostics. 
 indicates that his 
recommendation is based on a review of the petitioner's curriculum vitae and publications and peer 
review for the journal for which 
 serves on the editorial board. 
 does not claim to 
have been familiar with the petitioner's work prior to being requested to provide a reference letter or to 
have been impacted by the petitioner's work. Rather, he concludes that, based on his review of the 
petitioner's credentials and publications, the petitioner's contributions "substantially exceed those made 
by the majority of research scientists with the comparable qualifications in the field." If s 
attempting to narrow the petitioner's field to other postdoctoral researchers, we reiterate that the 
petitioner must compare with the most experienced and renowned members of his field. Regardless, 
bare assertions of significant contributions without an explanation of the impact of the petitioner's work 
in the field cannot establish the petitioner's eligibility under this criterion. 
We acknowledge that the petitioner has published his work in distinguished journals and has presented 
his work at notable conferences. As stated above, however, publications and presentations are 
insufficient to meet the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that they 
constitute contributions of major significance. Kazarian, 2009 WL 2836453 at *6. We acknowledge 
that the petitioner's 2003 article regarding the pertussis toxin and dendritic cells is moderately cited, 
although we note that two 2005 articles that cite his work have been cited approximately twice as often 
in less time. Thus, this topic is heavily researched and cited. The petitioner has not maintained this 
level of interest in his work as his later articles have been only minimally cited. We are not persuaded 
that this citation level is indicative of contributions of major signzJicance and sustained national or 
international acclaim. The petitioner's 2003 article was highlighted in the same issue of the Journal of 
Immunology as it appeared and, on appeal, the Editor-in-Chief of the journal asserts that only the top 10 
percent of articles are so highlighted. Nevertheless, the highlighted work was only being published at 
that time and its ultimate impact was as of yet unknown. Thus, the highlighting can only be considered 
evidence of the potential of this work. The petitioner's citation and the highlighting of his article, 
however, will be considered below as it relates to the publication of scholarly articles by the petitioner 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
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 Ph.D. thesis or postdoctoral 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. 
While the record includes numerous attestations of the potential impact of the petitioner's work, 
none of the petitioner's references provide examples of how the petitioner's work is already 
SRC 08 800 13483 
Page 10 
influencing the field. While the evidence demonstrates that the petitioner is a talented researcher 
with potential, it falls short of establishing that the petitioner had already made contributions of 
major significance. Thus, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the Jield, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
Initially, the petitioner submitted seven articles and seven conference presentations. He also submitted 
evidence that his 2003 article on the pertussis toxin and its effect on dendritic cells had been cited 
twice. In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted additional 
citations of the petitioner's 2003 article and three articles that cite other work by the petitioner. 
The director concluded that the petitioner had not established that his articles constitute contributions of 
major significance. On appeal, counsel asserts that the director failed to consider the letters of 
recommendation or citation evidence. The petitioner submits evidence that his 2003 article had been 
moderately cited as of the date of filing and that six of his other articles have been minimally cited. 
Finally, counsel notes that the petitioner's article in the Journal of Immunology was highlighted in that 
issue. 
The director erred in concluding that the petitioner did not meet this criterion because his articles do not 
rise to the level of contributions of major significance. Contributions of major significance are 
addressed under a separate criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(v), discussed above. While the two 
criteria are related in that a researcher may report his contribution of major significance in a scholarly 
article, we withdraw any implication fiom the director's decision that an alien must meet the criterion 
set forth at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(v) in order to meet the scholarly articles criterion, set forth separately 
at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(vi). 
Nevertheless, the Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook, (OOH), available at 
http://www.bls.~ov/oco/ocos047.htm#trainin (accessed October 22, 2009 and incorporated into the 
record of proceeding), provides that a solid record of published research is essential in obtained a 
permanent position in basic biological research. As a researcher must demonstrate published research 
prior to even obtaining a permanent job in the petitioner's field, published research alone cannot serve 
to set the petitioner apart fiom others in his field. 
While we acknowledge that we must avoid requiring acclaim within a given criterion, it is not a circular 
approach to require some evidence of the community's reaction to the petitioner's published articles in 
a field where publication is expected of those merely completing training in the field. Kazarian, 2009 
WL 2836453 at *6. 
In this matter, we are satisfied that the petitioner's publication record, including citations, is sufficient 
to meet this criterion. For the reasons discussed above, however, the record falls far short of meeting a 
third criterion. 
SRC 08 800 13483 
Page 11 
Finally, the conclusion we reach by considering the evidence to meet each criterion separately is 
consistent with a review of the evidence in the aggregate. Even in the aggregate, the evidence does not 
distinguish the petitioner as one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor. The petitioner, a postdoctoral fellow, relies on the volume of his judging experience, his 
publication record, and the praise of his peers. While this may distinguish him from other postdoctoral 
fellows and research associates, we will not narrow his field to others with his level of training and 
- 
have served on the editorial boards of several 
for the Advancement of Science and 
the American Academy of Microbiology and is Director of the Interdepartmental Immunobiology 
Center at Northwestern University. is Director of the Clinical Immunology Laboratory at 
the Center for Neurologic Diseases at Brigham and Women's Hospital and a fellow of the American 
Neurological Association. Although we typically do not presume the influence of a given article solely 
from the publication in which it appeared, we simply note that several references have been published 
in Nature or Science. Finally, as stated above, two of the articles citing the petitioner have themselves 
been cited considerably more often than the petitioner's article in less-time: Thus, it appears that the 
highest level of the petitioner's field is far above the level he has attained. 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage 
who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself as a 
researcher to such an extent that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or international 
acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence indicates that the 
petitioner shows talent as a postdoctoral fellow, 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. 6 136 1. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.