dismissed EB-1A Case: Medical Research

~denttifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
bvadm of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
qffice of Administrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
IN RE: 
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. $ 1 153(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. 
3 103.5 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. 
$ 103.5(a)(I)(i). 
6k$2!!:cL 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
Nebraska Service Center. The petition is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 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. More specifically, the director found that the petitioner had 
failed to demonstrate receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that she meets at 
least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner meets the statutory requirements and 
at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 4 204.5(h)(3). 
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. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the 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 has 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 she has sustained national or international acclaim at 
the very top level. 
This petition, filed on September 12, 2007, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with 
extraordinary ability as a research associate. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3) indicates 
that an alien can establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one- 
time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award). Barring the alien's receipt 
of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, at least three of which must be satisfied for 
an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary 
ability. A petitioner, however, cannot establish eligibility for this classification merely by 
submitting evidence that simply relates to at least three of the criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204,5(h)(3). In determining whether the petitioner meets a specific criterion, the evidence itself 
must be evaluated in terms of whether it is indicative of or consistent with sustained national or 
international acclaim. A lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory 
definition of "extraordinary ability" as "a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one 
of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. 
204.5(h)(2). 
The petitioner has submitted evidence that, she claims, meets the following criteria under 8 
C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3).' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in theJield of endeavor. 
The petitioner claims to meet this criterion based on her receipt of a 1998 Travel Award from 
the International Association for the Study of Liver (IASL), a 1998 Young Investigator Service 
Award from the Asian-Pacific Congress of Clinical Biochemistry, a 1998 Young Investigator 
Award presented during the Alimentary Disease Week, Manila, Philippines, a 2000 BJ Wakil 
Young Investigator Award presented by the Indian Association for the Study of Liver (INASL), 
a 2000 Young Investigator Bursary Award from the Chinese Congress of Clinical Chemistry and 
Lab Medicine (CCCCLM), and an Asia Award "A" from the International Congress of Clinical 
Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (ICCCC) in 2002. The petitioner also claims that she meets 
this criterion based on her nomination for the National Women Bioscientist Award presented by 
the Government of India's Ministry of Science and Technology. 
The petitioner submitted a copy of an October 1, 1998 letter from the IASL informing her that 
she had been selected to receive a travel award for her abstract that was to be presented during 
the IASL Poster Session at the IASL Biennial Scientific Meeting to be held from November 4 
through November 6, 1998 in Chicago. The letter informed the petitioner that the award 
"recognizes the excellence of the abstract submitted and is intended to defray [her] expenses to 
attend the meeting." In response to the director's June 6, 2008 request for evidence (RFE), the 
1 
 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
petitioner submitted information regarding the IASL from the organization's website. However, the 
information provided does not include a discussion regarding the IASL travel award, the criteria 
used to select individuals for the award or any other information that would indicate that the award 
is nationally or internationally recognized as an award of excellence in the etitioner's field of 
endeavor. The petitioner also submitted a July 7,2008 letter from - director of the 
Vein Clinics of America. stated that the petitioner won the "prestigious 'Young 
Investigator Travel Award"' and that: 
Of the several hundred research papers submitted to this international meeting, only 
about twenty scientists were awarded and of the three from the Indian subcontinent, 
[the petitioner] authored Ico-authored the research in two of them. This award is an 
academic recognition for the original research in Hepatology done by a young 
scientist. The award includes an invitation to present the research a this prestigious 
world meeting and a cash award of USD 800. 
letter does not indicate the source of his information regardin this award and no other 
documentation in the record supports statements. Further, *does not state or 
provide any evidence that the travel award isnationally or internationally recognized as an award of 
excellence in the petitioner's field. The petitioner has not established that she competed for thls 
travel award with the most experienced and renowned members of her field rather than simply with 
other young scientists who might have difficulty affording the travel costs. 
The petitioner also submitted a copy of a "Regional Service Award" presented to her by the 8' 
Asian-Pacific Congress of Clinical Biochemistry held in Malaysia from October 11 through 
to the RFE, the petitioner provided a copy of a June 30, 2008 let& 
, professor and head of the Department of Biochemistry of the All India 
New  elh hi. stated that the purpose of this award "is to 
recognize high quality research pursued by a young scientist in the field of clinical biochemistry in 
the Asian pacific region." He also stated that to receive the award, the recipient must be less that 40 
years of age and have a "meritorious abstract as judged by the award committee." did not 
state the basis of his knowledge regarding the Regional Service Award and the petitioner provided 
no documentation from the organizations sponsoring the award to verify statements. 
Additionally, the petitioner submitted no documentation to establish that the Regional Service 
Award, which stated consists of a citation and full travel expenses, is nationally or 
internationally recognized as a prize or award of excellence in the petitioner's field. 
In an October 2 I, 2008 letter, chair of the Free Paper Presentation, 
advised the petitioner that she had been selected to receive the Young Investigators Award for 
the Alimentary Disease Week 1998, Manila Philippines, and that she was scheduled to present 
her abstract in an oral presentation. The petitioner submitted no other documentation regarding 
this award and nothing in the record establishes that it is nationally or internationally recognized 
as a prize or award of excellence in the petitioner's field of endeavor. 
The record reflects that the petitioner was awarded the B.J. Vakil Young Investigator's Award at 
the 2000 Annual Conference of the INASL. The petitioner submitted documentation regarding 
the organization from its website. However, the documentation does not include information 
about the B.J. Vakil Young Investigator's Award. In his letter, 
 stated: 
This is a prestigious academic recognition for the work done by a young scientist 
(under 40 years of age) for contribution original research in Hepatology. The 
award is judged by a jury, including foreign experts, who select the most 
meritorious research paper presented by a young scientist fiom among hundreds 
of papers presented to the academic committee of the INASL. 
~~ainfails to state the basis for his knowledge regarding the award and nothing in 
the record supports his statements or provides evidence that the B.J. Vakil Young Investigator's 
Award is nationally or internationally recognized as a prize or award of excellence in the 
petitioner's field. The petitioner provided no documentation from the INASL regarding the 
award. 
The petitioner also submitted a copy of an April 4, 2000 letter from the CCCCLM 2000, 
notifying her of her award of a "bursary on merit of [her] abstract, 'Absence of 
Hemochromatosis Associated (CYS282TYR HFE Mutation in Patients with Chronic Liver 
Disease in India."' The letter further stated that the bursary included a waiver of the registration 
fee and free accommodation in shared quarters during the course of the congress and a $4,000 
cash allowance. The petitioner submitted no other information regarding this award or to 
establish that it is nationally or internationally recognized as a prize or award of excellence in the 
petitioner's field of endeavor. 
The record contains an October 8, 2002 letter from the chairperson of the organizing committee 
for the 42nd Annual Meeting of Japan Society of Clinical Chemistry. The letter invited the 
petitioner to present a poster at the 1 tIth ICCC 2002 Kyoto to be held in Kyoto, Japan. The letter 
further advised the petitioner that the "invitation does not offer you any financial support except 
JPY 100,000 as the award of Asia A for poster presentation." The petitioner submitted no other 
documentation regarding this award or to establish that it is nationally or internationally 
recognized as a prize or award of excellence in her field. 
The record also contains an October 29, 2001 letter from professor and head of 
the Department of Gastroenterology at G.B. Pant Hospital in New Delhi, wherein he nominated 
the petitioner for the National Women Bioscientist Award:2001. The petitioner submitted no 
documentation to establish that this award, much less a nomination for the award, is nationally or 
internationally recognized as a prize or award of excellence in her field of endeavor. 
In response to the RFE, the petitioner submitted a copy of a certificate fiom the Indian Society of 
Gastroenterology (ISG) certifying that she had won the ISG-WIN-Medicare Young Investigator 
Award at the 41" Annual Conference of the ISG held in Delhi from November 19 to 25, 2000. 
Although the petitioner submitted documentation regarding the ISG, she submitted no other 
Page 6 
information from the organization regarding the Young Investigator Award. In his July 7, 2008 
letter, stated: 
This is a major recognition for a young scientist (under 40 years of age) in the 
field of Gastroenterology. The awarded research was selected from amongst 
hundreds of papers submitted to the ISG Annual conference by leading national 
and invited experts. 
did not provide the basis of his knowledge of the award and the petitioner submitted 
no documentation to confirm his statements or to establish that it is nationally or internationally 
recognized as an award of excellence in her field. 
It is further noted that many of the awards won by the petitioner appear to be restricted by 
academic status and age group, i.e., students and under the age of 40. With regard to awards won 
by the petitioner in student or age-group competitions, we do not find that such awards indicate 
that she "is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 
See 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). There is no indication that the petitioner faced significant 
competition from throughout her field, rather than mostly limited to individuals not yet in the 
professional field or in selected age groups. USCIS has long held that even athletes performing at 
the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary ability" standard. Matter of 
Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Commr. 1994); 56 Fed. Reg. at 60899.' Likewise, it does not 
follow that a competitor like the petitioner who has had success in a competition restricted to her 
status as a student or by age, should necessarily qualify for an extraordinary ability employment- 
based immigrant visa. To find otherwise would contravene the regulatory requirement at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(2) that this visa category be reserved for "that small percentage of individuals that have 
risen to the very top of their field of endeavor." Further, the plain language of the regulatory 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(i) specifically requires that the petitioner's awards be 
nationally or internationally recognized in the field of endeavor and it is her burden to establish 
every element of this criterion. In this case, there is no evidence showing that the petitioner's 
awards commanded a significant level of recognition beyond the context of the events where 
2 
While we acknowledge that a district court's decision is not binding precedent, we note that in Matter of 
Racine, 1995 WL 1533 19 at *4 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 16, 1995), the court stated: 
[Tlhe plain reading of the statute suggests that the appropriate field of comparison is not a 
comparison of Racine's ability with that of all the hockey players at all levels of play; but rather, 
Racine's ability as a professional hockey player within the NHL. This interpretation is consistent 
with at least one other court in this district, Grimson v. INS, No. 93 C 3354, (N.D. Ill. September 
9, 1993), and the definition of the term 8 C.F.R. 6 204.5(h)(2), and the discussion set forth in the 
preamble at 56 Fed. Reg. 60898-99. 
Although the present case arose within the jurisdiction of another federal judicial district and circuit, the 
court's reasoning indicates that USCIS' interpretation of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 4 204.5(h)(2) is 
reasonable. 
they were presented. For example, there is no evidence showing that the petitioner's awards 
were announced in major media or in some other manner consistent with national or international 
acclaim. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has failed to establish that any of the awards she received are 
nationally or internationally recognized as prizes or awards of excellence in her field of 
endeavor. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classzjcation is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines orjelds. 
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 work 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. The overall prestige 
of a given association is not determinative. The issue is membership requirements rather than the 
association's overall reputation. 
With the petition, the petitioner submitted a copy of a page from the Marquis Who's Who 
webpage, indicating that her "biography is under consideration for inclusion or has recently been 
published in" Who's Who in Science and Engineering -2008-2009. The document indicated that 
the publication date for the book was December 5, 2007 and that the petitioner's selection status 
was "under consideration." First, the petitioner submitted no documentation of the selection 
criteria for inclusion in this book. Additionally, the petitioner was not included in the book as of 
the date her petition was filed. A petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing; a 
petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner or beneficiary becomes eligible 
under a new set of facts. 8 C.F.R. $$ 103.2(b)(l) and (12); Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 
49 (Comm. 1971). 
In response to the RFE, the petitioner submitted a copy of a January 10, 2007 letter from= 
president of the American Physiological Society (APS), informing the petitioner 
that she was elected to regular membership in APS and a copy of her membership certificate. 
Information from the APS website indicates that to qualify for regular membership, the applicant 
is evaluated on education (those with advanced degrees), occupation (those "who have a position 
in a department of physiology or closely allied fields), contributions to physiological literature, 
and special considerations (acknowledgment of the applicant's "unique accomplishments and 
scholarly contributions to physiology outside of research). The organization also admits 
members as affiliates or students. The documentation from the petitioner, therefore, does not 
establish that APS requires outstanding achievements of its members, either as a regular, affiliate 
or student member. The petitioner submitted documentation indicating that members of the APS 
have received recognition as Nobel Prize winners or hold membership in the National Academy 
of Sciences. However, while some members may have achieved national and international 
recognition for their accomplishments, the APS does not limit membership only to those 
individuals, and the petitioner has submitted no documentation that she is either a Nobel Prize 
winner or a member of the National Academy of Sciences. 
The petitioner also submitted a copy of an undated letter from - 
welcoming her to the American Society for Microbiology (ASM) and a copy of her membership 
- 
card. Documentation from the organization's website, accessed by the petitioner on June 25, 
2008, indicates that "Full Membership is open to any person who is interested in microbiology 
and holds at least a bachelor's degree or equivalent experience in microbiology or related field." 
The requirement of a bachelor's degree or equivalent experience is not evidence that ASM 
requires outstanding achievement as a condition of membership. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the director "simply dismisses the submitted evidence without 
adequately considering it" and states that the petitioner "stands by the evidence she has 
submitted." However, the director clearly stated that the evidence submitted regarding 
membership in the APS and ASM does not indicate that the petitioner meets this criterion. As 
discussed above, we concur with that determination. 
The petitioner has failed to establish that she meets this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classzfication is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary 
translation. 
In order to meet this criterion, published materials must be primarily about the petitioner and be 
printed in professional or major trade publications or other major media. To qualify as major 
media, the publication should have significant national distribution and be published in a 
predominant language. Some newspapers, such as The New York Times, nominally serve a 
particular locality but would qualify as major media because of a significant national 
distribution. 
The petitioner did not initially claim to meet this criterion. However, in response to the WE, the 
petitioner submitted information retrieved from the website of Newsfi, which bills itself as the 
"World's Largest Source of Health News." The document, consisting of three pages, contains 
four articles about the petitioner's work that were published in different media, including 
Hepatitis Weekly, Health & Medicine Week, and Biotech Business Week in 1998,2001,2005 and 
2007. We note that in today's world, many news articles and printed materials, regardless of size 
and distribution, are posted on the Internet. To ignore this reality would be to render the "major 
media" requirement meaningless. We are not persuaded that international accessibility via the 
Internet by itself is a realistic indicator of whether a given publication is ''major media." The 
petitioner must still provide evidence, such as, a widespread distribution, readership, or overall 
interest in the publication in order to demonstrate that the publication is a professional or major 
trade publication or major media in order for us to credit these articles. The petitioner also failed 
to submit documentation regarding the publications in which the articles initially appeared. 
Therefore, the petitioner has failed to establish that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the 
work of others in the same or an alliedJield of speczfication for which classzJication is 
sought. 
The petitioner submitted documentation indicating that she had served as a reviewer for the 
Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology. The petitioner stated that she had been a reviewer 
since 2002 and had reviewed over 15 research papers. In response to the RFE, the petitioner 
submitted documentation fi-om the Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology indicating that it 
is published 12 times per year and that "[all1 submitted papers are reviewed by at least two 
referees expert in the field of the submitted paper." 
Ln denying the petition, the director stated: 
The Service maintains that service as a peer reviewer is a normal activity 
expected of similarly educated and qualified researchers and falls within routine 
institutional practice. Moreover, there is no evidence which suggests that the 
petitioner has garnered any recognition consistent with national or international 
acclaim as a result of performing this service. 
Citing Buletini v. INS, 860 F. Supp. 1222 (E.D. Mich. 1994), counsel asserts that "USCIS has 
rewritten the statute and regulations by imposing an added burden to show 'recognition 
consistent with national or international acclaim as a result of performing this service.' No such 
language appears in the statute or regulation." 
Although the director may have overreached in stating that the petitioner must show that her 
work as a reviewer must have been nationally or internationally recognized, we cannot ignore 
that peer review is a routine element of the process by which articles are selected for publication 
in scientific journals. Occasional participation in the peer review process does not automatically 
demonstrate that the petitioner has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of 
his field. Reviewing manuscripts is recognized as a professional obligation of researchers who 
publish themselves in scientific journals. Normally a journal's editorial staff will enlist the 
assistance of professionals in the field who agree to review submitted papers. It is common for a 
publication to ask multiple reviewers to review a manuscript and to offer comments. The 
publication's editorial staff may accept or reject any reviewer's comments in determining 
whether to publish or reject submitted papers. Significantly, the court in Buletini acknowledged 
that "the examiner must evaluate the quality, including the credibility, of the evidence presented 
to determine if it, in fact, satisfies the criteria." Buletini, 860 F. Supp. at 1234. Without evidence 
that sets the petitioner apart from others in her field, such as evidence that she has reviewed an 
unusually large number of articles, received independent requests from a substantial number of 
journals, or served in an editorial position for a distinguished journal, we cannot conclude that 
she meets this criterion. 
The petitioner has failed to establish that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientzfic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signzficance in the field. 
To establish that she meets this criterion, the petitioner submitted letters from several 
individuals, including the following: 
Professor of Molecular Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, College of Medicine at 
University, stated in a July 25, 2007 letter that she had known the 
petitioner since 2003 when the petitioner joined her laboratory as a postdoctoral fellow and 
research associate, and that the worked with her on a major National Institutes of Health (NIH) 
funded research project. further stated: 
In my laboratory, [the petitioner'slresearch identified the role of adiponectin [an 
adipokine (30-KD peptide) secreted by adipose tissue also known as adipocyte 
complement related protein (Acrp30)I in normalizing LPS stimulated TNF-a 
production by Kupffer cells after chronic ethanol feeding in rats. This original 
finding was published in a high quality peer reviewed journal . . . The results of 
her experiments demonstrate that the anti inflammatory effect of adiponectin in 
Kupffer cells is due to decrease in production of TNF-a. The result of [the 
petitioner's] research is exemplary, for it identifies the protective effect of a 
unique protein molecule which could play an important role in preventing chronic 
ethanol-induced liver injury. This important signal transduction study has the 
potential for developing novel therapies against chronic alcohol induced liver 
injury and save millions of lives. 
Further [the petitioner] found that reactive oxygen species (ROS) specifically 
contributed in the development of chronic alcohol induced liver injury. The 
results of her experiments demonstrated that chronic alcohol ingestion increased 
LPS stimulated NADPH oxidase-dependent production of ROS in the Kupffer 
cell. Further, she found that excessive production of ROS targeted extracellular 
signal regulated kinase (ERK) 112, thus contributing to the increased LPS 
stimulated TNF-a production by Kupffer cells, which mediate liver injury. . . The 
work by [the petitioner] helped substantially in developing a broad understanding 
in the signal transduction pathways which mediate liver injury in chronic 
alcoholics. 
While 
 indicates the petitioner's work was original and "helped substantially," she does 
not state that the petitioner's work constituted a contribution of major significance to the field. 
In a July 17, 2007 letter, 
 an associate professor in the Departments of 
Nutrition and Pharmacology, and in the Comprehensive cancer Center at the Case School of 
Medicine, stated: 
[A]s a Ph.D. student and then as a postdoctoral fellow in India, [the petitioner] 
focused her research on the human Hepatitis B virus (HBV), and its interactions 
with other pathological states in human patients. Her findings led to over thirty 
research publications, and to several awards and honors. Since arriving at the 
United States of America, [the petitioner] has made a number of important 
contributions to the field of alcohol-related liver disease. Her findings resulted in 
several peer-reviewed manuscripts and has been instrumental in our efforts to 
understand the [I pathology of alcohol exposure. [She] has ljoined] my research 
group in February, 2007, and has been making excellent contributions o our quest 
for understanding the roles of vitamin E plays in human health and disease. 
does not indicate that the petitioner's research, while not without value, has 
constituted a contribution of major significance to her field. The petitioner's awards and peer- 
reviewed manuscripts that resulted from her work are discussed under separate criteria at 8 
C.F.R. $5 204.5(h)(3)(i) and (vi). 
project leader of endocrinology research and head of molecular biology at 
Biomeasure Inc., PSEN, an ''international pharmaceutical company," stated that the petitioner's 
"first major contribution to the medical sciences was identification of the etiologic basis for 
Malnourishment Related Diabetes Mellitus (MRDM)."~~SO stated that the petitioner's 
research "revolutionized the field of Diabetes" and that she was "awarded with the prestigious 
'visiting biochemist fellowship award' by Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), for her 
valuable contribution in establishing the first nationwide qualify control laboratory in India for 
the diagnosis of Diabetes Mellitus." 
also stated that the petitioner "made [an] important contribution in identifjing the 
optimal therapeutic dose of recombinant interferon required to treat Asian Indian patients 
suffering from HBV related chronic liver disease," work for which she "was awarded with [the] 
prestigious INASL-Gold medal." Again, nothing in the record supports assertion that 
the petitioner won a gold medal from the INASL. 
 further stated: 
The list of her original contributions to medical research is exhaustive and 
includes identification of a unique vaccine escape mutant of hepatitis B virus 
(G145R) which is capable of transmission among unrelated household members 
of HBV infected patients. The identification of this novel non-preventable HBV 
virus generated a worldwide awareness for need of research in this area to tackle 
this deadly disease . . . [She] was the first to report the role of HB virus genotypes 
in predicting the severity of chronic liver disease and response to antiviral drugs 
and interferon therapy . . . This finding unraveled the potential underlying cause 
Page 12 
of failure of recommended recombinant interferon therapy in mutant carrying 
subgroup of patients suffering from chronic HBV infection. 
She has conducted extensive research in liver cancer and was instrumental in 
demonstrating the primary role of wild and mutant HBV infection in liver cancer 
. . . [Her] seminal work also demonstrated that in south Asia, liver cancer is 
predominantly related to viral infection and is independent of alcohol 
consumption or the previously described mutations of the tumor suppressor p53 
gene. 
Development laboratory with the Victorian Infectious Diseases Reference Laboratory in 
Melbourne, Australia, in an undated letter, used language similar to in describing the 
petitioner's accomplishments and recognition. She also stated that: 
[The petitioner's] mile stonework . . . in identifying the molecular mechanisms of 
viral hepatitis has potentially saved millions of lives in the developing world and 
opened interest for original research around the world. The molecular techniques 
she standardized contributed in identifying the optimal therapeutic dose of 
recombinant interferon for treating Asian Indian patients of hepatitis B Virus 
(HBV) related chronic liver disease. This work won the prestigious INASL Gold 
medal for her group in the year 1994." 
The petitioner submitted no other documentation to support the statements of 
 and 
regarding a gold award presented by the INASL in 1994, the receipt of an award 
from the ICMR, or, other than the complementary letters from her other co-workers, the impact 
of the petitioner's work in diabetes and on the Hepatitis B virus. 
For example, in a July 11, 2008 letter, stated that the petitioner's "pioneering 
research" identified a "novel mutant strain of Hepatitis B virus infection that had worldwide 
public health significance" and that the infection would go undetected "unless the laboratories 
routinely use complex molecular techniques" developed by the petitioner. further 
stated that the petitioner's "ground-breaking discovery" "was acknowledged by the 'Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention' (CD 
 ited review article in their journal." The 
petitioner submitted an article by 
 an associate research fellow in the 
Diagnostics Division of Abbot Laboratories, who references the petitioner's work in a single 
citation. It is unclear how this single citation to the petitioner's work, included among the 40 
cited in paper, is evidence of her contribution of major significance to the field. 
The petitioner also submitted information regarding an assay developed by Abbot Laboratories 
to detect the Hepatitis B Virus which counsel asserts was in response to the petitioner's findings. 
However, nothing in the record supports that or otherwise establishes that the assay itself is of 
major significance to the field. 
Page 13 
also stated that the petitioner was honored by having an entry in the National Center 
fro Biotechnology Information (NCBI) gene ban, which sequenced her finding of a synthetic 
construct of an isolate of a "Precore mutant of hepatitis B" virus infection. stated that 
this was "an outstanding contribution to science which supports major drug developments efforts 
around the world." He further stated that the petitioner's findings regarding the signaling 
pathways in alcohol related liver injury "are being utilized by scientist[s] around the world to 
design novel therapeutic strategies to treat chronic alcohol induced liver injury." The petitioner 
submitted no documentation, such as documentation of the use of her studies to develop drugs or 
documentation that doctors or scientists are using her work to "design novel" treatment for liver 
injuries, to corroborate this statement by - 
The opinions of experts in the field, while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a 
successful extraordinary ability claim. 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 (Commr. 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 
795-796. Thus, the content of the experts' statements and how they became aware of the 
petitioner's reputation are important considerations. Even when written by independent experts, 
letters solicited by an alien in support of an immigration petition are of less weight than 
preexisting, independent evidence of original contributions of major significance that one would 
expect of a researcher who has sustained national or international acclaim. 
The above letters are all from the petitioner's collaborators and immediate circle of colleagues. 
Whlle such letters are important in providing details about the petitioner's role in various projects, 
they cannot by themselves establish the petitioner's acclaim beyond her immediate circle of 
colleagues. The ten regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) reflect the statutory demand for 
"extensive documentation" in section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act. Opinions fiom witnesses whom 
the petitioner has selected do not represent extensive documentation. Independent evidence that 
already existed prior to the preparation of the visa petition package carries greater weight than new 
materials prepared especially for submission with the petition. 
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. It does not follow that every researcher who perfoms original research 
that adds to the general pool of knowledge has inherently made a contribution of major 
significance to the field as a whole. 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 evidence submitted by the petitioner fails to establish that she 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. 
Although not indicated specifically in the director's final decision, in his WE, the director 
determined that the petitioner meets this criterion. We concur with his determination. 
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 her field of endeavor. Review of the record, 
however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished herself to such an extent that she 
may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the small 
percentage at the very top of her field. 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.