dismissed EB-1A Case: Medical Research

US. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
fdktiify'g data &feted to 
 U. S. citizenship 
ad Immigration 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of persod privacy 
PWC COPY - 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: SEP 0 8 2006 
LIN 05 006 51327 
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. 4 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. 
V 
%obert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
= Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition and reaffirmed the decision on motion. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals 
Office 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. 3 1 153(b)(l)(A). The 
director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim 
necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. The director also questioned 
the petitioner's job prospects. 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief and letters. Counsel's assertions and the letters, however, are not 
supported by primary evidence in the record. In fact, the record lacks evidence supporting the claims 
that the petitioner has actually engaged in medical research, his claimed area of expertise. Rather, he 
appears to be an experienced physician with an interest in herbal remedies. Specifically, none of the 
"scholarly" articles the petitioner has authored appear to report on the results of his own research. Nor 
has the petitioner established that these articles appear in notable peer-reviewed medical research 
journals. Thus, the petitioner has not overcome the director's bases of denial. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority Workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are 
aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with Extraordinary Ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, 
business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or 
international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the 
field through extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry to the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
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. 4 204.5(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. 
On the Form 1-140 petition, Part 6, the petitioner indicated that the proposed employment was as a 
"medical researcher." Counsel confirms on appeal that the petitioner intends to work as a 
pharmacognosy researcher. According to counsel, pharmacognosy includes the study of physical, 
chemical, biochemical and biological properties of drugs, drug substances, or potential drugs or drug 
substances of natural origin as well as the search for new drugs from natural sources. Counsel 
acknowledges that a medical degree is not necessary for this field and that it is still "a relatively obscure 
interdisciplinary specialization in the United States." As quoted above, section 203(b)(l)(A) requires 
that the alien seek to continue working in his area of expertise. Thus, the petitioner must demonstrate 
national or international acclaim as a medical researcher. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner's "field of endeavor is narrowly defined and it is 
[therefore] more likely that he has risen to the top of his field." Counsel is not persuasive. A petitioner 
may not narrow the field to such a small number that an analysis of the small percentage at the top of 
the field is meaningless. The failure of pharmacognosy to attract a significant following in the wider 
medical research community is not a mitigating factor. 
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 petitioner has submitted evidence that, he claims, meets the 
following criteria. ' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in thejeld of endeavor. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that "being designated as the editor of a major publication in a field of 
endeavor is of itself a lesser nationally recognized 'award' of a sort." Counsel is not persuasive. 
Selection for a job or editing responsibility, even a competitive one, is not an award or prize for 
excellence or comparable evidence of such an award or prize. Moreover, judging the work of others is 
a separate criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iv). Considering the petitioner's alleged editing 
responsibilities under this criterion as well would negate the statutory requirement for extensive 
evidence and the regulatory criterion that an alien meet at least three criteria. Thus, the petitioner has 
not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an alliedjeld of speczjcationfor which classIJication is sought. 
1 
 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
On appeal counsel asserts that the petitioner meets this criterion "as an editor for Newstart, the leading 
publication in the field of Pharmacognosy in Poland." The petitioner submits letters from physicians 
and physical therapists in the United States and Poland affirming that the petitioner wrote for and edited 
Newstart. One reference further asserts that the petitioner was a writerleditor for Health by Choice. 
Primary evidence to meet this criterion would include copies of the pages of publications listing the 
editorial staff and crediting the petitioner as an editor. The petitioner initially submitted a self-serving 
list of magazines and newspapers that have published his articles, Biznes Elcki, Glos Adwentu, Zdrowie 
Z Wyboru and Rozmaitosci Elcke. Of these publications, only Zdrowie Z Wyboru is identified as a 
health magazine. The petitioner submitted articles from these magazines and brief translated 
summaries. In the article "Komu Pomogl Program Newstart," translated as "Who Benefited from the 
Newstart Program," the petitioner describes this revitalization program. Nothing in the record, other 
than the assertions of the petitioner's references, suggests that Newstart is a publication in addition to a 
revitalization program. Thus, the petitioner has failed to submit primary evidence that Newstart is a 
publication or that he served as editor for this publication. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(2) provides that secondary evidence is acceptable only if primary 
evidence is unavailable or does not exist and that affidavits are only acceptable if secondary evidence is 
unavailable or does not exist. The record contains no evidence that primary and secondary evidence of 
the petitioner's alleged role as an editor of a leading journal is unavailable or does not exist. As such, 
we need not accept the references' attestations as to this alleged role for Newstart, a journal that the 
petitioner has not even established exists. 
We accept that Zdrowie Z Wyboru is Health by Choice, another publication the petitioner is alleged to 
have edited.2 Once again, however, primary evidence that the petitioner served as an editor for this 
publication would consist of his name listed as an editor within the publication. The petitioner did not 
include a published list of the editorial staff at Zdrowie Z Wyboru listing him as an editor. Moreover, 
primary evidence that this publication is a significant medical research journal would be evidence from 
the publication documenting its circulation or its official national ranking. The record contains no such 
evidence. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted primary evidence of his role as an editor for any 
publication and the petitioner has not corroborated the unsupported assertions of his references that 
Newstart exists or that Zdrowie Z Wyboru is a significant publication. Thus, the petitioner has not 
established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientzjc, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signiJicance in the field. 
2 
It is the petitioner's burden to provide complete translations of all foreign language documents. 8 C.F.R. 
5 103.2(b)(3). Nevertheless, while we were under no obligation to do so, we have confirmed the translation 
using online Polish-English dictionaries. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner has performed original research and has made 
contributions of major significance. Counsel further asserts that other physicians have relied upon the 
petitioner's work and other researchers have cited it. The only evidence referenced by counsel, 
however, consists of the reference letters submitted on appeal. 
Dr. a purported pathologist in ~loridaj asserts that the petitioner supervised a long- 
term clinical study "on Ginco balboae in cerebral hypoxia and arterial hypertensio [sic] treatment using 
Herba viscid and Folium rutae." Dr. rther asserts that the petitioner was the "pionier [sic] 
investigator [for a] clinical study in rules of plant sterols in receptors of [the] digestive tract." The 
record, however, contains no evidence that either study has been published in a major peer-reviewed 
medical research journal. Dr Vice President of the Springs of Life Foundation, asserts 
that the petition r "su undred senior citizens and treated them with natural 
medicine." Dr.eoes not provide the results of this study or explain how it is significant in the 
field. The record contains no evidence that the petitioner has published the results of this study in a 
major peer-reviewed geriatric or medical research journal. 
Finally, Dr. 
 Chief of a medical faculty at a clinic in Poland, asserts that the 
petitioner's work has been "cited by many other researchers" and that the petitioner has advanced the 
'field "particularly in the area of cancer research." Finally, D asserts that the petitioner has 
performed pioneering work in the "use of algae and green powders consisting of a mix of plants" 
widely acknowledged as groundbreaking. ~r a professor in Poland, provides similar 
information, asserting that the petitioner has performed research on the use of plant algae, chlorophyll 
and green plant material to treat cancer, which has been relied upon and cited "by many research 
medical people." Primary evidence that the petitioner has been cited would be the citations themselves 
or the results of a search through a citation index service. The petitioner provided no such evidence and 
has not explained why such evidence is unavailable or does not exist. As such, we need not accept a 
reference letter as evidence that the petitioner has been cited. In fact, the record lacks evidence that the 
petitioner has even published his work in a major peer-reviewed cancer or medical research journal. 
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. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (CIS) 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. 1988). However, CIS 
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; CIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the 
alien's eligibility. See id. at 795-796. CIS 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. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of 
California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
3 The record does not contain ~r.redentials. 
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. 
Ultimately, evidence in existence prior to the preparation of the petition carries greater weight than 
new materials prepared especially for submission with the petition. An individual with sustained 
national or international acclaim should be able to produce unsolicited materials reflecting that 
acclaim. 
The only primary evidence of the petitioner's research consists of the brief summary translations of 
articles the petitioner wrote for what appear to be magazines of undocumented circulation and 
newsletters. The vast majority of the articles are not even health related. Of those that are health 
related, the petitioner discussed the health benefits of attending a spa in the City of Vistula, herbal 
remedies for diabetes, the Newstart revitalization program as a way to treat diseases and ailments, early 
screening for coronary heart disease, remedial properties of sunflower flowers and raspberries, herbal 
baths for urolithiasis, bedwetting and sweaty feet, the effects of overeating, herbal remedies based on a 
book by another individual, the healing and culinary properties of sage and marjoram based on an 
herbal encyclopedia by another individual, the health benefits of tea, the properties of culluna vulgaris 
and achillea millefolium and recommendations for varicose veins. None of these summaries suggest 
that the petitioner actually performed research, especially in the areas discussed by the petitioner's 
references. The petitioner has not established that any of the publications are major peer-reviewed 
research journals. 
According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(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. The record contains no 
evidence that the petitioner has reported the results of his own research in peer-reviewed journals or 
presented his results at reputable medical conferences (or any conferences). Thus, there is no 
evidence that the petitioner has been widely and frequently cited as would be expected of a medical 
contribution of major significance. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in thejeld, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner has authored "numerous scholarly articles." As discussed 
above, the record lacks primary evidence, such as official rankings or circulation data, establishing that 
any of the magazines or newsletters publishing the petitioner's articles are "professional or major 
publications or other major media." The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. 
Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 
1983); Matter ofRamirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). 
Moreover, as also stated above, the vast majority of the articles have no medical relevance. The brief 
summaries provided suggest that even those articles discussing health benefits are more journalistic or 
anecdotal in nature rather than scholarly. Specifically, in at least two articles the petitioner is discussing 
herbal remedies that appear in other publications written by other individuals. There is no suggestion 
that he is reporting the results of his own research. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have n distinguished reputation. 
Counsel has consistently asserted that the petitioner was appointed "Chief of the United National [sic] 
Health Service" in Lebanon where he was in charge of Poland's medical contingent there. The 
unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter ofobaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. at 
534; Matter oflaureano, 19 I&N Dec. at 1 ; Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. at 506. In fact, 
the petitioner's appointment letter asserts that during his medical duty as an assistant to the 
gynecological ward at the military hospital in Elk, Poland, the petitioner "was sent to perfom his duty 
at the UN Temporary Peace Corps in Libanon [sic] at the post of the Chief of the Health Service." 
(Emphasis added.) Thus, while the petitioner worked for the Chief of the Health Service, there is no 
evidence that he actually served as the chief. Moreover, the petitioner has not established that serving 
in a leading or critical role as a physician is indicative of or consistent with national or international 
acclaim as a medical researcher, his claimed area of expertise. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
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 
medical 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 is an experienced physician with a medical column in a newsletter of 
undocumented significance, but is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set him 
significantly above almost all others in the field of medical research. Therefore, the petitioner has not 
established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
In addition, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(5) provides: 
Page 8 
No offer ofemployment required. Neither an offer for employment in the United States 
nor a labor certification is required for this classification; however, the petition must be 
accompanied by clear evidence that the alien is coming to the United States to continue 
work in the area of expertise. Such evidence may include letter(s) from prospective 
employer(s), evidence of prearranged commitments such as contracts, or a statement 
from the beneficiary detailing plans on how he or she intends to continue his or her 
work in the United States. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a personal statement confirming that he intends to continue working 
as a researcher in the field of pharmacognosy and has discussed employm 
w 
number of 
enthusiastic prospective employers. The petitioner also submits a letter from Dr. 
 sserting that 
he intends to hire the petitioner in his clinic to perform research and pub is 
 t e results. 
 The 
petitioner's personal statement is not sufficiently detailed. D 
 ndicates that he operates a 
clinic, not a research facility. The record is absent any 
 clinic includes a research 
laboratory. Thus, the record lacks evidence that the petitioner is coming to the United States to work as 
a medical researcher. 
For the above stated reasons, considered both in sum and as separate grounds for denial, 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. 9 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.