dismissed EB-1A Case: Medical Science

US. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office of Administrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
-- 
PUBLIC COPY 
FILE: Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: OCT 0 5 2009 
LIN 06 199 521 14 
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. 9 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned 
to the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to 
have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 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. 
$ 103S(a)(l)(i). 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
v 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based preference visa petition was initially approved by the 
Director, Nebraska Service Center. Following the required interview by the U.S. Embassy in 
hyadh, the director served the petitioner with a notice of intent to revoke the approval of the 
petition (NOIR). In a Notice of Revocation (NOR), the director ultimately revoked the approval of 
the Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Form 1-140). The matter is now before the 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
Section 205 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1 155, provides that " [tlhe Secretary, Department of Homeland 
Security], may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the 
approval of any petition approved by him under section 204." The realization by the director that 
the petition was approved in error may be good and sufficient cause for revoking the approval. 
Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582,590 (BIA 1988). 
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. tj 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 he meets at 
least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3). The director further determined 
that the petitioner had not established that he sought to enter the United States for the purpose of 
continuing in his area of expertise. 
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. $ 204.5(h)(3). Counsel further states that the 
director failed to consider the evidence that the petitioner submitted in response to the NOIR. 
The record reflects that the director issued his NOIR on July 14, 2008 and notified the petitioner 
that he had 30 days in which to rebut the director's proposed grounds for denial as set forth in the 
NOIR. In his decision, the director noted that the petitioner had failed to respond to the NOIR. 
On appeal, the petitioner submitted documentation that his response was received by the service 
center on August 13,2008. However, the petitioner's response was not considered by the director 
in his decision. Therefore, the AAO will consider all evidence of record. 
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 he has sustained national or international acclaim at 
the very top level. 
This petition, filed on June 26, 2006, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with 
extraordinary ability as a medical scientist. 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, 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. 
€j 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. 
6 204.5(h)(2). 
The petitioner has submitted evidence that, he claims, meets the following criteria under 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3).' 
1 
 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awardsfor excellence in the field of endeavor. 
Although the petitioner provided a list of "awards won" with his June 15, 2006 letter 
accompanying the petition, he did not claim to meet this criterion. The awards listed by the 
petitioner included two Wellcome Trust Fund research grants in 1991 and two University of 
Nigeria Teaching Hospital outstanding staff development in-service study awards for 1982 
through 1985 and 1988 through 1991. The petitioner submitted no documentation with the 
petition to verify receipt of these "awards" or to establish that they were nationally or 
internationally recognized as prizes or awards for excellence in his field. 
In his August 12, 2008 letter accompanying the petitioner's response to the NOIR, counsel 
asserted that the petitioner "has received numerous awards and recognition." Nonetheless, the 
record contains no documentary evidence of any of these awards or that they are nationally or 
internationally recognized as prizes or awards for excellence in the petitioner's field. 
The record does not establish that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classzfication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
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. 
The petitioner stated that he was a member of "learned societies" including the Medical 
Laboratory Science Council of Nigeria, the Association of Medical Laboratory Scientists of 
Nigeria, the Institute of Biomedical Science of the United Kingdom, the American Association 
of Blood Banks, Australia and New Zealand Society for Blood Transfusion, the International 
Society for Blood Transfusion, the African Society for Blood transfusion, the Nigerian Society 
for Immunology and the American Association of Clinical Pathologists. The petitioner also 
stated that in 1993, he had been invited to join the New York Academy of Science. 
The petitioner submitted copies of his membership cards for the Saudi Heart Association, the 
Institute of Biomedical Science, and the African Society for Blood Transfusion. Another card 
indicated that the petitioner had been a member of the AABB (American Society of Blood 
Banks). The petitioner submitted no documentation that these memberships were in associations 
which required outstanding achievements of their members as judged by recognized national or 
Page 5 
international experts in their fields. The petitioner also stated that he had been invited to join the 
New York Academy of Science. However, the petitioner submitted no documentation that he had 
actually joined the academy or that the organization required outstanding achievements of its 
members. 
In response to the NOIR, the petitioner stated that he belonged to the International Society for 
Blood Transfusion (ISBT), Australian and New Zealand Society for Blood Transfusion 
(ANZSBT) and is a clinical scientist member of the American Society of Clinical Pathology 
(ASCP). The petitioner stated that his memberships in these organizations were available only 
after expert assessment and council of experts' approval of my qualifications and scholarly 
activities." 
The petitioner submitted a copy of a February 12, 2003 letter informing him that he had been 
elected as a member of ANZSBT. However, he provided no documentary evidence of his 
membership in the ISBT. The petitioner submitted information about the ISBT retrieved from the 
website of the online user-edited encyclopedia Wikipedia. The document does not outline the 
membership criteria for the ISBT. Further, with regard to information fiom Wikipedia, there are 
no assurances about the reliability of the content from this open, user-edited internet site.2 See 
Lamilem Badasa v. Michael Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909 (8th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, we will not 
assign weight to information for which Wikipedia is the only cited source. 
The petitioner provided information from the ANZSBT that identifies the objectives of the 
organization but does not state the criteria it uses in selecting members. The petitioner submitted 
a copy of an undated letter from the ASCP, thanking him for renewing his membership in the 
society. The petitioner submitted no documentation about the membership requirements for the 
organization. The petitioner also provided documentation about the New York Academy of 
Sciences from the organization's website, accessed by the petitioner on August 12, 2008. The 
documentation indicates: 
* Online content from Wikipedia is subject to the following general disclaimer: 
WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY. Wikipedia is an online open-content 
collaborative encyclopedia, that is, a voluntary association of individuals and groups working to 
develop a common resource of human knowledge. The structure of the project allows anyone 
with an Internet connection to alter its content. Please be advised that nothing found here has 
necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, 
accurate or reliable information. . . . Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the 
information found here. The content of any given article may recently have been changed, 
vandalized or altered by someone whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge 
in the relevant fields. [Emphasis in original.] 
See http:llen.wikipedia.ordwiki/Wikipedia:Genera1 disclaimer, accessed on September 1, 2009, a copy 
of which is incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
Page 6 
A candidate for Fellowship must have attained recognition for significant 
professional achievement in research, or for advancement and leadership in 
science, medicine, or engineering. All candidates must have been Academy 
members for at least one year by the application deadline. A candidate for 
Honorary Life membership must have attained great distinction in science and 
need not be an Academy member. 
The petitioner stated that the members of the Academy include more than 40 Nobel Laureates. 
The prestige of the Nobel Prize is not in dispute. It remains, however, that the petitioner is not a 
recipient of the Nobel Prize. Thus, its significance is irrelevant. That the New York Academy of 
Sciences includes members who have won the Nobel Prize does not impart that distinction to the 
remainder of its members who have not been so recognized. Additionally, while the petitioner 
submitted documentation to reflect that he was invited to join the Academy, he submitted no 
documentation that he is or has been a member of the organization. 
The petitioner has failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the 
work of others in the same or an alliedjeld of speciJication for which classzfication is 
sought. 
The petitioner did not initially allege that he meets this criterion. However, in response to the 
NOIR, the petitioner claims to meet this criterion based on his selection as an external examiner 
for the Medical Laboratory Science Council of Nigeria and at the University of Calabar in 
Nigeria, as a member of the editorial board of the Journal of Medical Laboratory Science 
(JMLS), and as chairman of the Scientific Sub-committee of the Nigerian Society for 
Immunology for its 21St Annual Scientific Conference. 
The petitioner submitted a copy of an October 28, 1990 letter from the Institute of Medical 
Laboratory Technology of Nigeria informing him that he had been nominated to serve as an 
external examiner for Part IV of the Hematology and Blood Group Serology Examination to be 
held fiom November 6 to 9, 1990 and a November 16, 1990 letter of appreciation from the 
 . 
Institute for his service. The petitioner also submitted a copy of a July 24, 1995 letter from the 
Institute inviting him to serve as an external examiner in the oral examination phase of the 
examination. The petitioner submitted no documentation that he actually served as an examiner 
in 1995. 
A copy of a December 19, 1994 letter from the University of Calabar informed the petitioner that 
he had been appointed as an external examiner for the Bachelor of Science program in the 
Department of Hematology for a period of three years. A second letter dated February 8, 1995 
also indicated that the petitioner's nomination as an external examiner had been approved and a 
June 28, 1995 letter informed the petitioner of examination dates. The petitioner submitted no 
documentation of any service as an examiner for the University of Calabar subsequent to these 
dates. 
In an August 10, 2008 letter, 
 of the University of Calabar stated 
that he was the National Secretary of the Association of Medical Laboratory Scientists of Nigeria 
and that the petitioner was a member of the editorial board of the JMLS. 
stated that the editorial board was selected "based on the judgment of the 
AMLSN National Executive Council for those who had attained exalted level of academic and 
professional accomplishments in their disciplines in medical laboratory science." The petitioner 
provided a copy of the cover and first page of the October 1993 volume of the JMLS that lists 
him as a member of the editorial board. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) provides that "a petition for an alien of extraordinary 
ability must be accompanied by evidence that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 
Evidence of the petitioner's participation as a judge must be evaluated in terms of these 
requirements. The weight given to evidence submitted to fulfill the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3)(iv), therefore, depends on the extent to which such evidence demonstrates, reflects, 
or is consistent with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the alien's field 
of endeavor. A lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory definition 
of "extraordinary ability" as "a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that 
small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. 
4 204.5(h)(2). For example, evaluating the work of accomplished professors as a member on a 
national panel of experts is of far greater probative value than evaluating the work of graduate or 
undergraduate students. Further, the petition was filed on June 26, 2006. The only documentation 
submitted by the petitioner relevant to this criterion dates more than 11 years prior to the filing 
date and is not consistent with a claim of sustained acclaim. 
The petitioner has failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientzfic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signzficance in the field. 
The director determined that the petitioner meets this criterion. However, we do not concur with 
this determination by the director and withdraw this finding. 
In his June 15, 2006 letter submitted in support of the petition, the petitioner stated: 
Some of my earlier works on Neutrophil phagocytic competence in sickle cell 
disease have been sort of springboard for some current research efforts that 
suggest a possible role for anti-adhesion molecules agents in the therapeutic 
intervention of vaso-occlusive crisis in sickle cell disease - a genetically-acquired 
debilitating disease of global distribution, including the USA. 
The petitioner submitted letters from several individuals in support of his visa petition. Among 
those were: 
of the Department of Patholo 
 and Laboratory 
Medicine at the King Abdul Aziz Medical City in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. dk stated in a 
May 8, 2006 letter that the petitioner has been supervisor of their Transfusion Medicine Service 
for more than 10 years, and that: 
His work on status of immunological parameters in Sickle Cell Disease has 
provided not only an objective approach for determining severity of the disease, 
but also has provided initial findings based on which anti-adhesion molecules 
therapeutic intervention for the disease is currently being explored with great 
promise by eminent international scholars in the field that have cited him in their 
books and journal publications. [The petitioner's] expertise is very frequently 
sought after not just in Saudi Arabia, but also in various other countries of the 
Middle East. 
a consultant hematologist and senior lecturer at St. Thomas' Hospital in 
London, stated that he has known the petitioner in a professional capacity for about 20 years. He 
further stated: 
[Hlis original works are very illuminating in understanding the mechanisms of 
sickle cell disease, a genetic blood disorder common in the United States and 
across the world. In addition, [the petitioner] has made important contributions in 
developing ways of providing blood transfusion with greater safety to those who 
need this life-saving treatment, as well as in the fight against the Human Immune 
Deficiency Virus (HIV). 
The petitioner also submitted a letter from who identifies himself as 
director of medical research and a professor of Medical Microbiology and Immunology. The 
letter, dated May 16, 2006, appears on the letterhead of Sozien Pharmaceuticals but references 
the e-mail account of another individual. The letter notes the petitioner's paper "on the status of 
immunological parameters in Sickle Cell Disease" and states that his "work, widely quoted in 
haemotology books as well as journals by his peers, has provided an objective approach for 
diagnosing the severity of the disease." 
While the petitioner's references praise his work on sickle cell disease, none indicate that the 
petitioner has made a contribution of major significance to his field. References to the 
petitioner's work by others in their own research is the subject of the criterion regarding 
authorship of scholarly articles under 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3)(vi) and will be discussed under that 
criterion immediately below. 
The opinions of experts in the field, while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a 
successful extraordinary ability claim. USClS 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 (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. 
While 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 his 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 from 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 performs original research 
that adds to the general pool of knowledge has inherently made a contribution of major 
significance to the field as a whole. 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. 5 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's 
contributions must be not only original but of major significance. We must presume that the 
phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, that it has some meaning. To be 
considered a contribution of major significance in the field of science, it can be expected that the 
results would have already been reproduced and confirmed by other experts and applied in their 
work. Otherwise, it is difficult to gauge the impact of the petitioner's work. 
The petitioner's evidence does not establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
Duties or activities which nominally fall under a given regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3) do not demonstrate national or international acclaim if they are inherent or routine 
in the occupation itself. As frequent publication of research findings is inherent to success as an 
established research scientist, publications alone do not necessarily indicate the sustained 
acclaim requisite to classification as an alien with extraordinary ability. Evidence of publications 
must be accompanied by documentation of consistent citation by independent research teams or 
other proof that the alien's publications have had a significant impact in his field. 
Page 10 
The petitioner submitted a list of 26 articles that he stated he had published in "learned iournals" 
and i6 scientific conferences that he had attended and presented papers. The etitioner submitted 
copies of some of those articles and presentations and copies of articles by that cited 
to the petitioner's articles. However, a review of those articles reveals that the articles cited by 
ere articles that he co-authored with the petitioner. Therefore, was also 
citing to his own work. We note that the article, "White blood cell count as a predictor of the 
severity of sickle cell disease during pregnancy," on which served as co-author, was 
published in 2007, after the filing date of the petition on June 26, 2006. Therefore, it is not 
evidence of the petitioner's eligibility for this criterion. 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. $5 103.2(b)(l) and (12); Matter ofKatigbak, 
14 I&N Dec. 45,49 (Cornrn. 1971). Although the petitioner's references stated that his published 
work was "widely quoted in haemotology books as well as journals by his peers," the petitioner 
submitted no documentary evidence of any independent references to his work. 
The petitioner has failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
To meet this criterion, the petitioner must show that he performed a leading or critical role for an 
organization or establishment and that the organization or establishment has a distinguished 
reputation. 
In his letter submitted in support of the petition, the petitioner stated that he was "currently 
employed as Supervisor of Transfusion Medicine for the National Guard Health Affairs in Saudi 
Arabia." 
The petitioner submitted a copy of a March 27, 2002 Certificate of Appreciation from the King 
Abdulaziz National Guard Medical City recognizing his "outstanding contribution to the 
successful achievement" of accreditation by the College of American Pathologists (CAP). An 
April 4, 2005 Certificate of Appreciation from the National Guard Health Affairs recognized the 
petitioner for "his distinguished service outstanding performance and contribution to the 
development and accreditation of The Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine." 
In an April 18, 2006 letter, a professor in the Department of pathology at 
Monrnouth Medical Center in Long Branch, New Jersey, stated that: 
[I]n his present capacity as the Supervisor of the Transfusion Services at the 
National Guard Hospital, Jeddah, [the petitioner] has maintained an exceptional 
standard and led the Blood Bank technical team in this facility to gain 
accreditation of the [CAP] without any deficiency. He also led the team to gain 
accreditation of the [AABB] without any citation. 
Page 11 
stated that the petitioner "authored more than 250 polices, processes and 
procedures" which have allowed the Transfusion Service to "run for over ten years now without 
a single adverse event." 
In response to the NOIR, the petitioner stated: 
I currently work for and supervise Transfusion Medicine Service at the highly 
acclaimed and distinguished National Guard Health Affairs, King Abdul Aziz 
Medical City (KAMC-WR), Jeddah in Saudi Arabia. This state-of-art-equipped 
hospital ranks amongst the top five most reputed hospitals in the kingdom of 
Saudi Arabia. It is accredited by JCI, CAP, AABB, the Royal Colleges of 
pathologists of the UK and Australia . . . There is no doubt that this hospital is an 
organization that commands [a] distinguished reputation . . . I played [a] pivotal 
role in guiding the Blood Bank Service of this organization to its first ever 
accreditationshe-accreditations from" CAP, the AABB and the JCI (Joint 
Commission International). 
The evidence sufficiently establishes that the petitioner served in a leading role for the National 
Guard Health Affairs King Abdul Aziz Medical City. However, the petitioner submitted no 
documentation to establish that the hospital enjoys a distinguished reputation. Going on record 
without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of 
proof in these proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing 
Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Cornm. 1972)). 
The petitioner has failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
The director further determined that the petitioner had failed to establish that he sought to enter 
the United States for the purpose of continuing in his area of expertise. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(5) provides: 
No offer of employment required. Neither an offer for employment in the United 
States nor a labor certification is required for this classification; however, the 
petition must be accompanied by clear evidence that the alien is coming to the 
United States to continue work in the area of expertise. Such evidence may 
include letter(s) from prospective employer(s), evidence of prearranged 
commitments such as contracts, or a statement from the beneficiary detailing 
plans on how he or she intends to continue his or her work in the United States. 
In his June 15, 2006 letter in support of the petition, the petitioner stated that he "look[ed] 
forward to continuing [his] work within the United States including further advancements in 
research of the sickle cell disease." In his NOIR, the director stated: 
[I]t is noted that while the petitioner relates his career and several of his 
accomplishments in his June 15, 2006 statement, the petitioner delves little into 
how he will continue working in his field in this country. Therefore, please submit 
further evidence to show that the petitioner is coming to the United States to 
continue working in his area of expertise. Such evidence may include letter(s) 
from prospective employer(s), evidence of prearranged commitments such as 
contracts, or another statement from the petitioner, but this time with specific 
details how he intends to continue working in this country. 
The petitioner indicated on his Form 1-140 that he intended to work as a medical laboratory 
science doctor and expected to earn $56,000 per year. In response to the NOIR, the petitioner 
stated that he has "initiated contacts for appropriate job positions in the clinical laboratory 
sciences" and that he is "ready, and willing to serve and contribute to the national interest of the 
US." The petitioner, however, submitted nothing to document his efforts at obtaining a job in the 
United States. The petitioner, therefore, has failed to sufficiently establish that he intends to 
continue to work in his area of expertise. 
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 his field of endeavor. Review of the record, 
however, 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. 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 AAO maintains plenary power to review each appeal on a de novo basis. 5 U.S.C. 557(b) 
("On appeal from or review of the initial decision, the agency has all the powers which it would 
have in making the initial decision except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule."); see 
also, Janka v. U. S. Dept. of Transp., NTSB, 925 F.2d 1 147, 1 149 (9th Cir. 199 1). The AAO's de 
novo authority has been long recognized by the federal courts. See, e.g. Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 
997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989). 
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.