dismissed EB-1A Case: Medical Research

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rrn. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
Qem&> 
PUBLIC copY 
 @ U. and S. Citizenship Immigration 
84~IvD S+ Services 
&nti&iing data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
 Date: JUN ;! 2 2007 
- - 
LIN 05 110 50371 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Inmugration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
-1 
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. 
Robert P. Wiemam, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska Senrice 
Center, and 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. 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. 
On appeal, counsel argues that the materials submitted along with the petition and in response to the director's 
request for evidence "clearly establish that the petitioner . . . is truly one of the very few scientists at the very top 
of the field of polmeric hydrogel research and applications." Counsel further argues that the petitioner's evidence 
meets five of the regulatory criteria at 8 C .F.R. $ 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 Extraordm Ability. -- An alien is described in ths 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 achevements 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. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) have 
consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals seeking immigrant 
visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-9 (November 29, 1991). As used in 
this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of 
that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(2). The 
specific requirements for supporting documents to establish that an alien has sustained national or 
international acclaim and recogrution in his or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 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. 
This petition, filed on March 1, 2005, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as a 
medical researcher. At the time of filing, the petitioner was working as a Research Associate in the 
Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, School of Medicine, Washington University, St. Louis 
(WUSL). In June 2005, the petitioner joined the Department of Bioengineering at the University of Utah, Salt 
Lake City (UUSLC). 
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. A petitioner, however, cannot establish eligibility for this classification merely by 
submitting evidence that simply relates to at least three criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(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. 5 204.5(h)(2). The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in theJield of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted a certificate reflecting that he received Second Prize (U.S. $50.00) for best paper and 
presentation at the Tenth National Symposium and Workshop on Thermal Analysis held at the Defense 
Materials and Stores Research and Development Establishment in Kanpur, India in December 1995. The 
petitioner also submitted a certificate reflecting that the Muslim Association for the Advancement of Science 
conferred him with a "Best Paper Award for the year 1995." The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
$204.5(h)(3)(i), specifically requires that the awards or prizes be nationally or internationally recognized and it is 
the petitioner's burden to establish every element of a given criterion. In this case, however, there is no evidence 
such as press coverage surrounding the petitioner's awards, the level of expertise of those considered, the 
number of individuals eligible to compete, or the geographic area from which the individuals eligible for 
consideration for the latter award were drawn to demonstrate the number of awards given, the criteria for 
granting these awards or other evidence showing that the awards command a substantial level of recognition. 
The petitioner submitted test results for the Joint Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) - 
University Grants Cornmission (UGC) of India Junior Research Fellowship (JRF)/Lectureship Examination 
held on December 30, 1990 informing the petitioner that he was "declared successful under the Eligibility for 
Lectureship." The petitioner also submitted a certificate fiom the UGC stating that the petitioner "qualified at 
the Joint CSIR-UGC Test for JRF and Eligibility for Lectureship held in June 1991 in the subject 
CHEMICAL SCIENCE and, is eligible, if admitted to a University/Institution to receive the Junior Research 
Fellowship of the University Grants Cornmission." We do not find that successfully passing a standardized 
test constitutes a prize or award "for excellence in the field of endeavor." Further, we note that eligibility for 
the preceding Junior Research Fellowship and lectureship was limited to students seeking to pursue graduate 
studies. University study is not a field of endeavor, but rather training for future employment in a field of 
endeavor. Receipt of educational funding fiom the UGC is not an indication that the petitioner has reached 
the "very top of the field of endeavor." See 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). 
Page 4 
The petitioner submitted a Macro '98 Certificate of Appreciation "for sharing ideas and insights as part of the 
WAC [Intemational Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry] International Symposium on Advances in 
Polymer Science and Technology." The petitioner also submitted a Macro '9 8 Certificate of Appreciation 
stating that the petitioner "participated in the lUPAC International Symposium on Advances in Polymer 
Science and Technology." 
 There is no evidence showing that these certificates are nationally or 
internationally recognized awards for excellence in the field, rather than simply an acknowledgment of the 
petitioner's participation in the Macro '98 symposium. 
The petitioner submitted a "Letter of Award" from the Japan Science and Technology Corporation stating that 
he was "approved as an awardee of the STA [Science and Technology Agency] Fellowship" for a training 
"period of 24 months." The petitioner also submitted a "Certificate of Occupation" issued by the New Energy 
and Industrial Technology Development Organization of Japan reflecting that he participated in a nineteen- 
month fellowship at the Osaka National Research Institute. The petitioner's fellowships reflect his selection 
for temporary scientific training opportunities rather than nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field. The preceding fellowships are granted not to established scientists with 
active professional careers, but rather to individuals seeking to further their research training and experience. 
The petitioner cannot artificially restrict his field to exclude all those researchers who have long since 
completed their postdoctoral research training and therefore do not compete for such fellowships. Therefore, 
we find it implausible for the petitioner to argue that his eligibility for postdoctoral training opportunities 
elevates him to a level above almost all others in his field. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classifzcation 
is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
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. Further, 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 membership in the American Chemical Society (ACS), the American 
Association for the Advancement of Science, and the Society for Biomaterials. The petitioner also claims 
membership in the ACS Polymer Division, Indian Chemical Society, and the Society for Polymer Science, 
India, but the record includes no fust-hand evidence confirming his mernbershp in these organizations. 
Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the 
burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soflci, 22 I&N Dec. 1 5 8, 1 65 (Cornm. 1 998) (citing Matter 
of Treasure Craft of Cal$ornia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). Nor has the petitioner submitted 
evidence of the membership bylaws or the official admission requirements for the above associations. 
Page 5 
A December 20, 2004 letter fro- Director of Member Services for the Association for 
Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO), states that the petitioner is a "member in good standing" in 
the ARVO. Her letter fbrther states: 
Membership is restricted to individuals demonstrating a serious interest in or making significant 
contributions to visual science. This may be evidenced by: (a) scientific publications; (b) attendance 
at ophthalmological or visual science meetings; (c) direct involvement in research, or (d) other similar 
activity satisfactory to the Board of Trustees. An applicant is eligible for membership in ARVO only 
on the recommendation of a member who has knowledge of the quality of the applicant's research 
efforts. 
ARVO is the premiere and the world's largest association of over 11,000 scientists from more than 70 
countries, who conduct research in vision and ophthalmology. 
We do not find that "demonstrating a serious interest in . . . visual science" is tantamount to outstanding 
achievement in that field. Further, while membership in the ARVO requires "the recommendation of a 
member who has knowledge of the quality of the applicant's research efforts," the letter from Barbara B. 
Hollis includes no indication that the recommending member must be a nationally or internationally 
recognized expert in the field. 
In addressing the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 4 204.5(h)(3)(ii), the director's decision stated: 
The alien self-petitioner submitted evidence of his membership in several associations in the field, but 
submitted documentary evidence of the membership requirements for only The Association for 
Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, in the form of a letter f?om the Director of Member Services. 
This letter states that membership is restricted to individuals demonstrating a serious interest in or 
making significant contributions to visual science, evidenced by scientific publications, attendance at 
ophthalmological or visual science meetings, direct involvement in research, or other similar activity 
satisfactory to the Board. It does not appear that membership in this association qualifies the 
petitioner under this criterion, as the requirements for membershp fall short of the regulatory 
requirement for outstanding achievements. Although no documentary evidence of the criteria for 
membershp in any of the other listed organizations was submitted, a review of the websites for 
several of these groups clearly indicates that they do not meet this criterion. The website for the 
American Chemical Society, which states that "Membership is for Everyone," indicates that 
membership is available to applicants with as little as a bachelor's degree in an ACS approved 
chemical science program. The American Association for the Advancement of Science website states 
that membership is open to all individuals who support the goals and objectives of the Association 
and are willing to contribute to the achievement of those goals and objectives. No membership 
criteria were found for the ACS Polymer Division, the Indian Chemical Society, or the Society for 
Polymer Science in India. Therefore, the record does not show that the petitioner is a member of an 
association whch requires outstanding achevements for membership. 
We concur with the director's observations. In this case, there is no evidence showing that admission to 
membership in the preceding associations required outstanding achievement or that the petitioner was 
Page 6 
evaluated by national or international experts in consideration of his admission to membership. Therefore, the 
petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
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 classijkation is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
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 quali@ as major 
media, the publication should have significant national or international distribution. Some newspapers, such as 
the New York Times, nominally serve a particular locality but would qualiQ as major media because of significant 
national distribution, unlike small local community papers.1 
The petitioner submitted a September 9, 2003 article by , Associate Director of Broadcast Services, 
WUSL, entitled "Lens replacement material may improve cataract treatment, eliminate bifocals," that was posted 
on WUSL's intemet website and by online publications such as Science Daily, e4engipteering.com, AMA TechTel, 
EurekAlert Medical News Today, and BrightSurfcom. The petitioner also submitted a September 8,2003 article 
by 
 United Press International 
 Senior Science Writer, entitled "New material could 
rejuvenate aging eyes," that appeared in The Washington Times and that was posted on the internet websites of 
UPI, Hindustan Times, and WUSL. The preceding articles by of WUSL and of UP1 
report on research findings described in a paper coauthored by the petitioner for presentation at the 226' national 
meeting of the ACS in New York in September 2003. These articles extensively quote the first author of the 
conference paper,, a graduate assistant, and the Principal Investigator of the 
research project, but only mention the petitioner's name in passing.2 Additional articles appearing in the online 
publication WeMD, The Hindu, USA Today, the Winter 2003 issue of Outlook (a WUSL School of Medicine 
publication), and the December 2003 issue of Optics and Photonics News do not mention the petitioner's name. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iii), however, requires the published material to be 
about the petitioner. If the petitioner himself is not the primary subject of the material or is not actually named in 
the material, then it fails to demonstrate his national or international acclaim. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted an article appearing in the February 
2005 issue of Chemistry World entitled "Clearer vision," but this article only mentions and quotes - 
While the article does include a reference to a paper the petitioner coauthored with 
 that was 
published in Biomacromolecules, the article in Chemistry World is not primarily about the petitioner. 
In addressing the preceding evidence, the director' s decision stated: 
In order to meet this criterion, the material submitted must be primarily about the alien. The record 
includes a number of articles about a research project in whch the petitioner participated, studying a 
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, for instance, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
2 
 The petitioner's name is briefly mentioned only once in the articles along with lab technician Paul Hamilton. 
Page 7 
new eye lens replacement material. However, while both the principal investigator of the project and 
the first author of the paper that prompted the articles are quoted at length, the petitioner himself is 
mentioned only briefly as another member of the team. Therefore, these articles do not constitute 
persuasive evidence of his sustained national or international acclaim. 
We concur with the director's observations. 
The petitioner also submitted a number of scientific journal articles that merely reference hs published work. 
As stated previously, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires that the published 
material be about the petitioner. In this case, the articles that cite the petitioner's work are primarily about the 
author's work, not the footnoted material identifjrlng the petitioner. We cannot ignore that the articles citing the 
petitioner's work similarly referenced numerous 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 further addressed under the 
"authorship of scholarly articles" criterion at 8 C.F.R. €j 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientz9c) scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the$eld. 
The petitioner submitted letters of support mostly written by his superiors and immediate colleagues from 
institutions where he has worked. 
, Associate Professor in the Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, School of 
Medicine, and an Affiliate Professor in the Department of Chemical En ineerin 
 WUSL, is also Chief of 
Ophthalmology at the Veteran Affairs (VA) Medical Center, St. Louis. who was the petitioner's 
postdoctoral research supervisor at WUSL, states: 
The research I am pursuing at the VA medical center is focused on the exploration of and 
development of a treatment for presbyopia. Presbyopia is a condition that afflicts all of us and is 
currently treated inadequately with bifocal lenses. . . . . For the last ten years the above research 
being performed at the VA has been funded by the VA Merit Review Grant. 
[The petitioner] joined my research group in April 2001 as a post-doctoral research fellow. [The 
petitioner's] essential role in this project was to synthesize hydrogels. The material was designed so 
that it could be injected and gelled inside the pre-evacuated lens capsular bag. He successllly 
followed established protocols and synthesized thiol containing polymeric material that would 
spontaneously gel when exposed to oxygen. The mechanical properties of the material facilitated 
other members in the research group to investigate the viscoelastic properties of lens and 
biomechanics of accommodation (auto focusing) process of the eye. 
On another research project [the petitioner] successfully prepared polymeric nanogels (nanoparticles) 
through intramolecular crosslinking (chemical reaction between reactive groups withn the polymer 
chain). His diligence in meticulously following instructions has led to the preparation of polymeric 
proteo-mimetics @rotein-like) materials which has potential application as artificial lens substitute. 
We acknowledge 
 research group's development of a material that has "potential application" as an 
artificial lens 
 While this material was the subject of media coverage discussed under the 
preceding criterion, there is no evidence that this technology rises to the level of a contribution of major 
significance specifically attributable to the petitioner. For example, 
 notes that the petitioner was 
diligent "in meticulously following instructions" that led to the preparation of the substance, but there is no 
evidence that the petitioner is listed as an inventor of the patented gel or that the gel has fulfilled the 
expectations discussed in the media articles. Further, the articles indicate that the material "could rejuvenate 
aging eyes" and "may improve cataract treatment," but there is no evidence of clinical trials or marketing data 
showing the technology has been success~lly introduced to market or that it has already had a substantial 
national or international impact. 
In addressing the evidence submitted for ths criterion, the director's decision stated: 
The record contains letters which were predominantly written by the [petitioner's] research 
collaborators, mentors or supervisors in support of the petition and as such, their probative value is 
somewhat limited by these previous relationships. It is true that some of the authors of those letters 
appear to be experts in the [petitioner's] field, but the record, at present, does not establish that the 
petitioner's accomplishments have been recognized as having advanced the field to a greater degree 
than others involved in similar pursuits by members of the greater scientific community. It is 
generally expected that an individual whose accomplishments have garnered sustained national or 
international acclaim would have received recognition for his accomplishments well beyond the circle 
of his personal acquaintances. In other words, if the petitioner's work is not widely praised apart fkom 
his personal and professional associates, then it cannot be concluded that he enjoys sustained national 
or international acclaim. It is expected that the record include a wider range of letters considering the 
extremely restrictive immigrant category that has been requested. 
Given that the petitioner's work on projects involving artificial lens substitutes is touted as among his 
most significant contributions, it is curious that the wording of the letter from the principal 
investigator of that project, is not more effbsive states that the petitioner 
"successfully followed s" and showed "diligence in meticulously following 
instructions" while working on these proj ects. While complementary to the petitioner, these 
comments do not appear to describe a scientist at the top of his field of endeavor. 
In response to the Service's reauest for additional evidence of his eligibilitv for this classification. the 
V 
petitioner submitted another ietter from, ~rinci~ai Scientist at Kerr McGee 
Chemical LLC. favorably describes the petitioner's work and publications, and describes 
him as "one of the most promising researchers in a scientific field which is experiencing great 
demand in the U.S. at the present time." Tlns description as a "promising" researcher is in line with 
the Service's conclusion that the petitioner has not yet reached the level of acclaim necessary for this 
classification. 
We concur with the director's observations. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a letter of support from 
 Professor in the Department of 
Bioengineering, Director of the Keck Center for Tissue Engineering, and Associate Dean for Research of the 
College of Engineering at UUSLC. 
 states: 
[The petitioner] has been working in the Bioengineering department since June 2005 in an important 
project sponsored by International Partnership for Microbicides (IPM) towards the development of 
HIV (AIDS) prevention options for women worldwide. In a short period, because of his unique skills 
in the design, synthesis and characterization of polymer systems he has made a significant 
contribution to this project in developing new strategies for the delivery of anti-HN drugs for the 
prevention of HIV transmission. Very specifically, his extensive expertise on polymeric materials 
enabled him to make an outstanding contribution in bringing-up a first generation polymeric 
formulation for the prevention of HN transmission. Prior to joining in the Bioengineering 
department, he has been actively engaged in several very important research projects at different 
world-renowned institutions in USA, Japan and India. 
We note that the petitioner's work at WSLC occurred subsequent to the petition's filing date. A petitioner, 
however, must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. $ 103.2(b)(12); see Matter of Katigbak, 14 
I&N Dec. 45 (Comm. 1971). Accordingly, the AAO will not consider the petitioner's work at UUSLC in this 
proceeding. 
[The petitioner] has presented and published his work in many international meetings and journals 
respectively. His research contributions are original and extraordinary and have been published in 
highly reputed and internationally circulated journals. . . . He has published his outstanding work in 
Biomacromolecules, a leading journal from ACS publishing research on polymers for biological 
applications. He has also published in another internationally circulated journal, Journal of Bioactive 
and Compatible Polymers. He has also contributed a chapter titled, "Tissue reactions to prosthetic 
materials" in the book, "The Bionic Human," published recently by Humana Press, NJ, USA. 
In discussing the petitioner's contributions at WSL, Dr. Tresco's letter repeats the assertions contained in an 
August 31, 2005 letter from 
 , who is the petitioner's current research supervisor and a 
Professor in the Department 
 at WSLC. Professors and both credit the 
petitioner with publishing his work in internationally circulated journals. The petitioner s published work, 
however, relates to the "authorship of scholarly articles" criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(vi), a criterion 
that, as will be discussed, 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 
authorshp of scholarly articles and original contributions of major significance, 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 research articles coauthored by the petitioner under the next criterion. 
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 published 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 or who follows protocols and instructions 
developed by others has inherently made a contribution of major significance in the field. According to the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(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. 
The appellate submission also includes a letter of support fi-om 
 Professor, Department of 
Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, stating: 
I have known 
hh 
[the petitioner's] supervisor, for approximately eight years, and 
collaborate in research wit 
 im in our attempts to curtail the spread of AIDS. 
[The petitioner's] research at Washington University in St. Louis is an exceptional contribution to 
medical science. There he was part of a team that developed an artificial intraocular prosthesis for the 
correction of presbyopia (the universal loss of near vision associated with aging). [The petitioner] 
developed a unique set of materials that could have a long term impact on this disease. 
We cannot ignore= observation that the petitioner's work at WUSL "could have a long term 
impact." With regard to the witnesses of record and the media reports discussed under the preceding 
criterion, we note that they discuss what may, might, or could one day result from the petitioner's work, 
rather than how his past research efforts at WSL already qualify as a contribution of major sigmficance. A 
petitioner cannot file a petition under ths classification based on the expectation of future eligibility. See 
Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 45. 
In this case, the letters of support provided by the petitioner's professional contacts are not sufficient to meet 
ths criterion. The opinions of experts in the field, while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a 
successful extraordinary ability claim. CIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements 
submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 79 1, 795 (Comm. 1988). 
However, CIS is ultimately responsible for malung 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. 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. Without extensive documentation showing that the petitioner's work has been 
unusually influential or hghly acclaimed throughout the greater field, we cannot conclude that his work rises 
to the level of a 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 thejield, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of his coauthorship of articles appearing in publications such as 
Biomacromolecules and Journal of Applied Pol mer Science. 
 The petitioner also submitted evidence 
showing that he coauthored a book chapter with 
 appearing in llre Bionic Human. The record also 
includes citation indices and copies of articles citing the petitioner's work demonstrating some measure of 
interest in his published re~earch.~ Therefore, we find that the petitioner's evidence is adequate to satisfy this 
criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has peformed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
In order to establish that he performed a leading or critical role for an organization or establishment with a 
distinguished reputation, the petitioner must establish the nature of his role within the entire organization or 
establishment and the reputation of the organization or establishment. 
The petitioner submitted documentation indicating that he has held research positions at UUSLC, WUSL, the 
Osaka National Research Institute, and the Central Leather Research Institute in India. In addressing the 
petitioner's evidence, the director's decision stated that "the record contains insufficient evidence that the 
petitioner has exceeded the contributions of other researchers at the various institutions where he has been 
employed to the point where he could be said to occupy a leading or critical role." We concur with the 
director's observation. We cannot ignore that the petitioner's role at WUSL and the Osaka National Research 
Institute was that of a postdoctoral researcher. This subordinate role is intended to provide temporary 
scientific training for a future professional career in one's field. When comparing the roles and 
responsibilities of the petitioner with those of his superiors who have 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 the petitioner has worked for organizations that have earned a distinguished reputation, there 
is no evidence showing that his role was of significantly greater importance than that of the other researchers 
employed by these organizations (including tenured professors such as The record does not 
demonstrate that the petitioner was responsible for the organizations' success or standing to a degree consistent 
with the meaning of "leading or critical role." 
3 
 According to the "Web of Science" citation indices submitted by the petitioner, the greatest number of cites to 
any single article coauthored by him was ten. 
Page 12 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
In this case, we concur with the director's finding that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate his receipt of a 
major internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the criteria that must be satisfied to 
establish the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary 
ability. 
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 sigtllficantly 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)(i) 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.