dismissed EB-1A Case: Life Sciences

identifying data deleted to 
prcvcnt ciear!y c~warranted 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Of$ce ofAdministrative Appeals MS 2090 
invasion of personal privacy 
 Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
pI.JBLIC COPY 
 and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 2030>)(1)(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. 9 103.5 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). 
Acting 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 on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification for the beneficiary as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 3 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of 
extraordinary ability in the sciences. The director determined that the petitioner had not established the 
beneficiary's sustained national or international acclaim required for classification as an alien of extraordinary 
ability. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
(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. 
Specific supporting evidence must accompany the petition to document the "sustained national or international 
acclaim" that the statute requires. 
 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
 An alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a "one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized 
award)." Id. Absent such an award, an alien can establish the necessary sustained acclaim by meeting at least 
three of ten other regulatory criteria. Id. However, the weight given to evidence submitted to fulfill the 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. 3 204.5(h)(3), or under 8 C.F.R. 3 204.5(h)(4), must depend 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). 
In this case, the petitioner seeks classification of the beneficiary as an alien with extraordinary ability in the 
sciences, specifically as a director of customer programs. The petitioner initially submitted a job offer for the 
beneficiary, articles authored by the beneficiary, information about the petitioner, the beneficiary's educational 
diplomas, information about companies the beneficiary previously worked for, patents obtained by the 
beneficiary, and information about the beneficiary's salary. In response to a Request for Evidence ("RFE) 
dated February 12, 2008, the petitioner submitted letters of recommendation, an updated citation list, 
information about the journals that published the beneficiary's articles, information about the petitioner's 
business deals, and information about the beneficiary's salary. 
On August 29, 2008, the director denied the petition, finding that the beneficiary did not meet any of the 
regulatory criteria for establishing sustained national or international acclaim at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). On 
appeal, the petitioner argues that the beneficiary meets the criteria at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3)(v), (vi), (viii), and 
(ix). 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientrfic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions 
of major signzjkance in the field. 
While letters of recommendation provide relevant information about an alien's experience and 
accomplishments, they cannot by themselves establish the alien's eligibility under this criterion because they 
do not demonstrate that the alien's work is of major significance in his field beyond the limited number of 
individuals with whom he has worked directly. Even when written by independent experts, letters solicited 
by an alien in support of an immigration petition carry less weight than preexisting, independent evidence of 
major contributions that one would expect of an alien who has achieved sustained national or international 
acclaim. 
A March 11, 2007 letter from 
 a former co-worker of the beneficiary, states that he and the 
beneficiary together designed a strategy to measure kinase enzyme activity which had commercial application. 
He stated that the beneficiary "also made significant contributions to the understanding of the regulation of 
glycogen metabolism, with implications to diabetes research." The letter from European Marketing 
Manager for the petitioner, states that the beneficiary was recruited to work for the petitioner "due to his 
reputation as a leader in the life science's field, and his significant contributions to Cell Signaling research." In 
addition, the petitioner licensed the work done by the beneficiary and, which "was commercialized 
. . . [and] proven to be highly successful in large measure because of its ability to accelerate early stage kinase 
drug discovery campaigns." Lastly, 
 stated that the beneficiary's "research and discoveries have 
impacted the scientific community and he is one of few scientists whose work has enabled pharmaceutical and 
biotech companies to accelerate critical therapeutic drug discovery campaigns." The letter from m 
an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, states that he is "familiar with [the beneficiary's] work 
and writings . . . [as the beneficiary's] articles have significantly impacted the field of life science in many 
ways." 
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 
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. We must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not superfluous 
and, thus, that it has some meaning. While these letters discuss the value of his work, there is no evidence that it 
constitutes an original contribution of major significance in his field consistent with sustained national or 
international acclaim. Without evidence showing that the petitioner's work has been unusually influential, 
highly acclaimed throughout his field, or has otherwise risen to the level of contributions of major significance, 
we cannot conclude that he meets this criterion. 
The petitioner also submitted evidence of two patents obtained by the beneficiary (obtained in multiple 
jurisdictions): "Methods and reagents for assaying protein kinase activity" and "Protein domains in the 
hepatic glycogen-targetting [sic] subunit of protein phosphatase 1 and methods of making and using the 
same.'' The letter from stated that the information in these patents was being used as it "allows for 
research to be performed at a dramatically accelerated pace leading to more readily available drug candidates 
for the treatment of debilitating and deadly diseases." -states that "[rlesearchers at many of the top 
pharmaceutical companies in the world are currently using [the beneficiary's] product portfolio to accelerate 
kinase drug discovery programs." also noted that the beneficiary "also significantly contributed to 
the life sciences field through his studies on the regulation of glycogen metabolism and hormone action." 
The petitioner presented no evidence to support assertions nor did-explain how he came 
to learn about the use of the beneficiary's inventions by pharmaceutical companies. Going on record without 
supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I. & N. Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of 
California, 14 I. & N. Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). The petitioner submitted no evidence of the use of the 
beneficiary's diabetes research or the impact that research has had on the field. 
For all of the above stated reasons, the petitioner has not demonstrated the beneficiary's eligibility under this 
criterion. 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The record contains evidence of numerous articles authored in professional publications by the beneficiary as 
well as an extensive amount of independent citations to the beneficiary's articles. We find such evidence 
sufficient to establish the beneficiary's eligibility under this criterion. We, therefore, withdraw the director's 
finding on this issue. 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments 
that have a distinguished reputation. 
To meet this criterion, a petitioner must establish the nature of his role within the entire organization or 
establishment and the reputation of the organization or establishment. Where an alien has a leading or critical 
role for a section of a distinguished organization or establishment, the petitioner must establish the reputation of 
that section independent of the organization itself. Counsel claims that the beneficiary is eligible under this 
criterion by virtue of his work with the petitioner, the University of Dundee ("University"), and Upstate. 
The petitioner submitted its Securities and Exchange Commission filings, its 2005 and 2006 Annual Reports, 
information from its website, information about its grant program, and a list of Life Science Awards won by the 
company. The petitioner also submitted an article from the "BioInformatics" website entitled "[The petitioner] 
Ranked Top supplier in Drug Discovery Market" and a news release entitled "[The petitioner's] Products In Use 
for Mad Cow Disease Testing; Patents Issued for Electrophoresis Gel Solutions." The petitioner submitted no 
evidence that the receipt of a Life Science Award conveyed acclaim upon the recipient or that those awards 
indicate that the petitioner enjoys a distinguished reputation. Similarly, the petitioner submitted no evidence to 
show that BioInformatics is an accepted judge of companies' standing within the drug discovery market. The 
November 30, 2006 letter from 
 corporate counsel to the petitioner, provides background 
information about the petitioner including its basic business and pursuits, however, it does not indicate the 
petitioner's reputation in the field. As such, the petitioner did not present evidence that it enjoys a distinguished 
reputation. The petitioner did submit evidence showing that the beneficiary performs in a leading or critical 
role. The November 30, 2006 letter fro-w states that the beneficiary holds the position of Director of 
Customer Programs, which is a "senior leadership position that directly impacts [the petitioner's] bottom line 
success." continues: "[the beneficiary] routinely interfaces with top scientific professors, 
researchers, doctors, academicians, business leaders and other professionals . . . [he also] serves as a critical link 
between [the petitioner's] Research and Development and Marketing functions, its pharmaceutical research 
customers, and the biotechnology marketplace. In this position, [the beneficiary] is responsible for driving and 
expanding [the petitioner's] product and services portfolio into the marketplace on a global basis." This 
description of the beneficiary's duties shows that he performs in a leading role for the petitioner. 
Information about the University shows that the Division of Signal Transduction Therapy ("DSTT") is a 
collaboration between the University and several major pharmaceutical companies. The letter from - 
states that the DSTT "has become a model for knowledge transfer between the academic and commercial 
sectors" and that the DSTT received the Queen's Anniversary Prize, which is "the most distinguished award that 
can be made to a UK institution for higher or further education." The receipt of this prize was also mentioned 
on the University website. The petitioner also submitted an article about the continuing collaboration between 
DSTT and the pharmaceutical industry. An article from Medical News Today states that 
 runs the 
Protein Phosphorylation Unit and that this Unit "is recognised as the world's most important centre in this area 
- - 
and has pioneered collaboration with the pharmaceutical industry to help develop drug development." This 
information indicates that the DSTT enjoys a distinguished reputation, however, the petitioner resented no 
evidence that the beneficiary played a leading or critical role for the DSTT. The letter from b states 
that the beneficiary's research constituted a leading or critical role for DSTT and that "[ulnder [the 
beneficiary's] early leadership of the scientific operations function, the DSTT has evolved into an 
internationally respected academic/commercial collaboration." provides no details as to how the 
beneficiary's work led to the DSTT's evolution. The petitioner also submitted a list of 
 past 
postdoctoral researchers, which indicates that the beneficiary served in such a capacity. The subordinate role of 
postdoctoral researcher is designed to provide temporary research training for a future professional career in the 
field of endeavor. There is no evidence demonstrating how the petitioner's role differentiated him from the 
other researchers in the department where he worked, let alone more senior faculty. letter indicates 
that the beneficiary served as "Manager of Scientific Operations and Commercial Development" at the DSTT 
for three years, however no evidence was presented to show that this was a position separate from the work that 
the beneficiary did as a postdoctoral researcher. ~lthou~h obviously valued the beneficiary's 
contribution, the evidence presented does not indicate that the beneficiary served in a leading or critical role for 
the DSTT. In addition, although the DSTT received the Queen's Anniversary Prize, the prize was given to the 
DSTT in 2006, which was three years after the petitioner left the DSTT. 
The only information submitted about Upstate is a printout of that company's website and a statement from the 
- 
Serologicals Corporation. No information appears in the record to indicate that Upstate enjoys a distinguished 
reputation such as about its standing in the community or world. Even if Upstate had been shown to enjoy a 
distinguished reputation, the information provided about the beneficiary's role does not indicate that it was 
leading or critical. The letter from states that the beneficiary served as a senior executive with Upstate 
and "held direct responsibility for the European Business Development team and matrix management 
responsibility for product development teams in R&D and Manufacturing" and that the beneficiary contributed 
to Upstate through "his direct impact on the product and technology portfolio'' in that the beneficiary licensed 
the beneficiary's inventions and products. The information provided about Upstate indicates that it only has 3 1 
employees and that the beneficiary did not serve at the top level as 
 served as his supervisor. 
As such, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
(ix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signlJicantly high remuneration for services, 
in relation to others in thefield. 
The November 30, 2006 letter from states that the beneficiary earns a $161,871 base salary and the 
statement from global payroll manager, indicates that the beneficiary received a $47,402 
incentive bonus in March 2006. The information submitted from the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicates that a 
marketing manager in the field of scientific research and development services earned an annual mean wage of 
$124,560 in 2005. In 2009, the mean wage in this field was $144,720. The beneficiary's salary is above 
average, but not "significantly high . . . in relation to others in the field." 
Accordingly, the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Lastly, the statute and regulations require that the beneficiary seek to continue work in his area of expertise in 
the United States. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(ii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 153(b)(l)(A)(ii); 8 C.F.R. 4 204.5(h)(5). 
The evidence presented concerning the articles authored by the beneficiary, the claims that the petitioner made 
about the beneficiary's contribution the field, and the work done for DSTT and Upstate concerns scientific 
research and findings. The job described by the petitioner that the beneficiary does concerns business and its 
components, such as marketing. Although the position with the petitioner relies upon the beneficiary's scientific 
education and experience, it does not involve the same skill set that a job as a scientist requires as evidenced by 
the different settings in which these jobs are performed: the beneficiary made his scientific discoveries and did 
his research in a laboratory as opposed to his job with the petitioner that is done in a more traditional office 
setting. Even though the petitioner views the beneficiary's scientific discoveries and background as an asset and 
even if the petitioner would not have hired the beneficiary were it not for this scientific background, the job that 
the beneficiary performs for the petitioner in upper management is a business position and not a scientific 
position. As such, we are unable to conclude that the beneficiary will continue to work within his area of 
expertise. 
In this case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary received a major, internationally 
recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3). Review of 
the record does not establish that the beneficiary has distinguished himself 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 is not persuasive that the beneficiary's achievements set him significantly above 
almost all others in his field at a national or international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established the 
beneficiary's 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.