dismissed EB-1A Case: Medical Research

ndentifying data deleted to 
pmvesrat dearjy nnwarr6aated 
invasion of gwrsonal privhcy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rrn. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration ,\ 
2 ,)ti "C ** fS 4@ 
FILE: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: APR loge 
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) 
-, 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 
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 niust be made to that office. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Director, 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office 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 1153(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. 
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. 
5 204.5(h)(2). The specific requirements - for supporting documents to establish that an alien has sustained 
national or international acclaim and recognition in his or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. 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 earned sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on February 10, 2005, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability 
as a researcher. At the time of filing, the petitioner was workkg as a postdoctoral research fellow at the 
University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences. 
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 pertaining to the following criteria. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognizedprizes or 
, awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted a Radiobiology 2000 Best Poster Award issued by the Regional Cancer Center, 
Trivandrum, India on February 19, 2000. It is noted that the petitioner worked as a research fellow at this 
institution from January 1995 to November 2000. 
The petitioner also submitted a Post Graduate Alumni Prize issued by the Department of Biochemistry of the 
Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Pondicherry, India in 1994. We note that 
petitioner earned his Master of Science degree from this institution in 1994. 
i 
We find that the preceding awards reflect institutional recognition rather than national or international 
recognition. There is no supporting documentation from the awarding entities or the print media establishing 
that the petitioner's awards are nationally or internationally recognized awards for excellence in the research 
field. The record includes no evidence that would demonstrate the number of awards given, the geographic 
area from which the individuals eligible for consideration for these awards were drawn from, the criteria for 
granting these awards, the level of expertise of those considered, and the number of individuals eligible to 
compete. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classzj?cation is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or$elds. 
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 
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. In addition, it is clear from the regulatory language that members must be selected at the 
national or international level, rather than the local or regional level. Finally, 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 evidence of his "Associate" membership in the American Association for Cancer 
Research. Information submitted on appeal from this organization's website states: "Associate Membership 
is open to graduate students, medical students and residents, and clinical and postdoctoral fellows who are 
enrolled in educational or training programs that could lead to careers in cancer research." We do not find 
that one's enrollment "in educational or training programs that could lead to careers in cancer research" is 
indicative of outstanding achievement. As stated previously, the immigrant visa classification sought by the 
petitioner is reserved for those who have already "risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." See 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(2). 
Page 4 
The petitioner also submitted evidence of his membership in the New York Academy of Sciences (NYAS). 
The promotional material from the NYAS submitted on appeal, however, provides no specific information 
regarding its official admission requirements or membership bylaws. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits evidence of his membership in the DNA Repair Interest Group. Information 
submitted by the petitioner from this organization's website states that its membership "is open to all 
interested scientists at NIH or at other institutions." There is no evidence showing that this group requires 
outstanding achievement as a condition for admission to membership. 
We find that the evidence submitted by the petitioner is not adequate to demonstrate that his membership in 
the preceding organizations required outstanding achievement or that he was evaluated by national or 
international experts in consideration of his admission to membership. 
Published materials about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classijication is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
,- 
In general, 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. An alien would not 
earn acclaim at the national or international level fiom a local publication. 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.' 
On appeal, counsel argues that citations of the petitioner's published work represent qualifying evidence under 
this criterion. We note, however, that the petitioner and his work were not the primary subject of the articles 
that cited his research findings. If the petitioner is not the main subject of these articles or is not often named 
in the articles, then such articles fail to demonstrate his individual acclaim. Scientific articles which cite the 
petitioner's work are primarily about the author's own work, not the petitioner's work. As such, they cannot 
be considered qualifying published material about the petitioner's work. We cannot ignore that the articles 
citing the petitioner's work similarly referenced scores of other authors. In the petitioner's field, it is the 
nature of research work to build upon work that has gone before. In some instances, prior work is expanded 
upon or supported. In other instances, prior work is superseded by the findings in current research work. In 
either case, the current researcher normally cites the work of the prior researchers. Clearly this is not the 
same thing as published material written about an individual's work in the field. This type of material does 
not discuss the merits of an individual's work, the individual's standing in the field, or any significant impact 
that his or her work has had on work in the field. Citations of the petitioner's work will be addressed under a 
separate criterion. 
I 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, cannot 
serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
- 
Page 5 
Evidence of the alien S original scientijk, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signiJcance in the$eld 
The petitioner submitted several letters of support. We cite representative examples here. 
From December 2000 to December 2004, the petitioner worked as a research associate at the University of 
Texas Health Center (UTHC) in Tyler, Texas under the supervision Associate Professor 
of Molecular Biology at the UTHC. A January 14,2004 letter from 
[The petitioner] came to my lab in December 2000, and has been working on the drug resistance of 
breast cancer cells. 
[The petitioner] has extensively studied the role of p53, NFkB and YB-1 transcription factors in drug 
resistance of cancer cells. Additionally, he has extended his research in the area of DNA damage and 
related signaling events due to genotoxic agents. . . . [The petitioner's] publications are in very 
advanced area of cancer therapeutics that can advance our therapeutic intervention in cancer treatment. 
[The petitioner] is also a co-inventor in one of my patent applications currently pending at the U.S. 
Patents office. 
qrofessor of Pediatrics, National Jewish Medical and Research Center (NJMRC), Denver, 
Colorado, who coauthored several publications withwhen they worked together during the 1990's at 
the NJMRC, states: "In addition to papers published or submitted, [the petitioner] has helped to produce two 
patent applications aimed at improving treatment of various cancers." 
On a peal, the petitioner submits evidence showing that the UTHC is seeking a patent for his work with 
The record, however, includes no evidence showing their patent application represents a contribution of 
major significance in the cancer research field. We note here that anyone may file a patent application, 
regardless of whether the invention constitutes a significant contribution. According to statistics released by 
the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), which are available on its website at 
www.uspto.nov, the USPTO has approved over one hundred thousand patents per year since 1991. In 2001, 
for example, the USPTO received 345,732 applications and granted 183,975 patents. Therefore, given the 
amount of patent applications that the USPTO receives on an annual basis, we find it implausible that simply 
filing a patent automatically qualifies as a contribution of major significance in one's field. In this case, there 
is no evidence showing that the patent application related to the petitioner's research findings was approved 
by the USPTO at the time of filing, that major pharmaceutical companies have expressed significant interest 
in the petitioner's invention, or that his invention has provided a measurable national health benefit. Without 
evidence showing that the petitioner's invention has attracted a substantial level of interest beyond individuals 
with direct ties to the petitioner, his research mentors, or his affiliated institutions, we cannot conclude that 
the petitioner's invention meets this criterion. 
. Page 6 
, Professor, St. Louis University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, states: 
[The petitioner's] publications from graduate work are in highly regarded international journals and 
indicate that he has gained outstanding training in the areas of Molecular Biology and Cancer Research. 
Within a short time (since 2000) in the U.S., he has already published three outstanding research papers 
and has communicated three additional manuscripts. f 
In the same manner as additional witnesses from the UTHC, Mahatma Gandhi University 
(where the petitioner earned his Ph.D.) in India, the Regional Cancer Center in India, and the University of 
Arkansas discuss the petitioner's publication record. We note, however, that published work falls under the next 
criterion, a criterion that we find the evidence in this case adequately satisfies. Here it should be emphasized 
that the regulatory criteria are separate and distinct from one another. Because separate criteria exist for 
published work and contributions, Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) clearly does not view the two 
as being interchangeable. If evidence sufficient to meet one criterion mandated a finding that an alien met 
another criterion, the requirement that an alien meet at least three criteria would be meaningless. We will 
fully address the petitioner's published works and citations under the next criterion. 
We cannot ignore that the witnesses in this case consist almost entirely of individuals from institutions where 
the petitioner has studied and worked. With regard to the personal recommendation of those with whom the . 
petitioner has studied and worked, the source of the recommendations is a highly relevant consideration. 
These letters are not first-hand evidence that the petitioner has earned sustained acclaim outside of his 
affiliated institutions. If the petitioner's reputation is mostly limited to those institutions, then he has not 
achieved national or international acclaim regardless of the expertise of his witnesses. In the present case, we 
cannot conclude that petitioner's past contributions far exceed those of other capable cancer researchers. The 
evidence submitted by the petitioner is not adequate to show that his work is nationally or internationally 
acclaimed throughout his field as a contribution of major significance. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in thejeld, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
We concur with the director that the petitioner's publication record and citation history are adequate to satisfy this 
criterion. The citation history of the petitioner's articles demonstrates that other researchers have been 
influenced by his published work and are familiar with it. 
Evidence ,that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
On appeal, counsel states that the petitioner performed in leading or critical role at the UTHC as a cancer 
researcher. The petitioner's role at the UTHC, however, was that of a Research Associate. This subordinate 
role at the university is designed to provide temporary scientific training for a future professional career in a 
field of endeavor. The record includes no evidence showing the extent to which the petitioner exercised 
substantial control over personnel or research decisions executed on behalf of the UTHC. When comparing 
the roles and responsibilities of the petitioner with those of his seven colleagues from the UTHC who offered 
letters of support, it becomes immediately apparent that the importance of their roles and responsibilities far 
exceeded that of the petitioner. While we accept that the UTHC has earned a distinguished reputation, there 
is no evidence showing that the petitioner's role was of significantly greater importance than that of the other 
researchers employed by this institution (including tenured faculty). In this case, the petitioner's evidence 
fails to demonstrate that he has performed in a leading or critical role for a distinguished organization, or that 
his involvement has earned him sustained national or international acclaim. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signiJicantly high remuneration 
for services, in relation to others in the$eld. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a letter fiom the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences reflecting that 
he earned an annual salary of $30,000 in 2005.~ 
The petitioner also submits a job offer letter dated June 3, 2005 from the Children's Cancer Research Institute 
offering the petitioner a salary of $46,000 from July 1, 2005 to August 3 1, 2006. This evidence came into 
existence 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)(12); see Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45 (Comm. 1971). Subsequent 
developments in the alien's career cannot retroactively establish that he was already eligible for the classification 
sought as of the filing date. 
Nevertheless, the plain wording of this criterion requires the petitioner to submit evidence of a high salary "in 
relation to others in the field." The petitioner offers no basis for comparison showing that his compensation was 
significantly high in relation to others in his field. There is no indication that the petitioner earns a level of 
compensation that places him among the highest paid cancer researchers in the United States. 
In this case, we find that the evidence satisfies only one of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner 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 petitioner's achievements set him significantly above 
almost all others in his field at the 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. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
, ORDER: . The appeal is dismissed. 
The petitioner commenced employment on January 1,2005.