dismissed EB-1A Case: Medicinal Chemistry

identimng data deleted to 
prevent -ly onwarrantdl 
indm oP ~rsooal p- 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W.. Rrn. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: - Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER 
WA- 
Date: JUN 9 0 2005 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
u Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, California Service 
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. 9 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability in the 
sciences. The director determined that the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international 
acclaim requisite to classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
(I) 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 into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
The applicable regulation defines the statutory term "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). Specific supporting evidence must accompany the petition to document the "sustained 
national or international acclaim" that the statute requires. 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3). An alien can establish 
sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a "one-time achievement (that is, a major, 
international recognized award)." Id. Absent such an award, an alien can establish the necessary sustained 
acclaim by meeting at least three of ten other regulatory criteria. Id. 
In this case, the petitioner seeks classification as an alien with extraordinary ability in the sciences, specifically 
in medicinal chemistry. The record indicates that the petitioner is a postdoctoral research associate at the 
Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California. The petitioner initially submitted supporting documents 
including her curriculum vitae and academic credentials, five recommendation letters, evidence of her 
publications and citations of her articles, documentation of two U.S. patents and two patent applications on 
which she is listed as a co-inventor, a professional association membership card, an article from a patent law 
firm newsletter, evidence of her participation in professional conferences in her field, printouts from the 
websites of institutions and universities where she has been employed and educated, and additional information 
relating to one area of her research (vascular targeting agents). The director noted the petitioner's 
accomplishments, but found that the record did not evidence the requisite sustained acclaim. 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief and additional evidence including three new recommendation letters and the 
galley proof for a new article of which the petitioner is the lead author. Counsel's claims and the additional 
evidence submitted on appeal do not overcome the deficiencies of the original petition and the appeal will be 
dismissed. 
We first address three issues raised by counsel. First, in his initial brief, counsel referenced a letter written by 
Former Immigration and Naturalization Service Acting Assistant ~omrnissione- This 
letter requires no deference. As clarified by the Office of Programs, such letters "do not constitute official 
Service policy and should not be considered as such in the adjudication of petitions or applications." Memo. 
from Thomas Cook, Acting Asst. Cmmr., Off. of Programs, Immig. and Naturalization Serv., to All Serv. Ctr. 
Dirs., Dist. Dirs., 0ffs.-in-Charge, Significance of Letters Drafted by the Oflce ofAdjudications, (Dec. 7,2000). 
In addition to the Act, regulations and AAO precedent decisions, only policy memoranda are considered official 
CIS policy. Id. The Weinig letter is internal correspondence responding to an inquiry from a service center 
director. It is not a CIS policy memorandum and thus warrants no deference. 
Second, counsel also cites two unpublished AAO decisions in his appellate brief for the proposition that the 
exceptional prestige and caliber of the authors of an alien's recommendation letters should add support to the 
alien's petition. Counsel again relies on unauthoritative sources. Although designated and published decisions 
of the AAO are binding precedent on all CIS employees in the administration of the Act pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
fj 103.4(c), unpublished AAO decisions have no such precedential value. 
Third, counsel believes that "to deny [this] application without even having issued a Request for Evidence 
[was] unfortunate" (emphasis in original), as stated on page three of his appellate brief. Although 8 C.F.R. 
$ 103.2(b)(8) requires the director to request additional evidence in instances "where there is no evidence of 
ineligibility, and initial evidence or eligibility information is missing," the director is not required to issue a 
request for further information in every potentially deniable case. If the director determines that the initial 
evidence supports a decision of denial, the cited regulation does not require solicitation of further 
documentation. In this case, the director did not deny the petition based on insufficient evidence of eligibility. 
Furthermore, even if the director had committed a procedural error by failing to solicit further evidence, it is not 
clear what remedy would be appropriate beyond the appeal process itself. The petitioner has in fact 
supplemented the record on appeal, and therefore it would serve no useful purpose to remand the case simply to 
afford the petitioner the opportunity to supplement the record with new evidence. 
Counsel's remaining contentions, the director's decision, and the submitted evidence are addressed in the 
following discussion of the regulatory criteria relevant to the petitioner's case. 
(ii) Documentation of the alien S membership in associations in theJield for which classiJication is sought, 
which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international 
experts in their disciplines orJields. 
The director correctly determined that the petitioner did not meet this criterion. The record contains a copy of 
the petitioner's membership card for the American Chemical Society. The petitioner also submitted an excerpt 
from the 2001 ACS Annual Report that describes the organization as "the world's largest scientific society with 
a membership of more than 163,000 chemists, chemical engineers, academicians, and other practitioners of the 
chemical sciences." The record does not include the ACS membership criteria or any other evidence that 
Page 4 
outstanding achievements are prerequisite to ACS membership. Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this 
criterion. 
(iii) Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media, 
relating to the alien's work in the jeld for which classzjication is sought. Such evidence shalI include the 
title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
The petitioner submitted copies of twelve articles that cite publications of which she is a co-author and an article 
from the Spring 2001 edition of Innovation Lcrw News, a newsletter published by the Head, Johnson & 
Kachigian patent, trademark and copyright law firm. The director discussed the citations, but did not address 
the newsletter article. This oversight has not prejudiced the petitioner, however, because the article does not 
evidence her eligibility under this criterion. The article is entitled "Inventor Spotlight" and features a - 
photograph of the petitioner's supervisor at Baylor University, Professo The article discuss& 
a patent issued in 2000, "Anti-Mitotic Agents Which Inhibit Tubulin Po ymenzation" and lists the petitioner's 
name as one of the patent's co-inventors. Documentation of this patent in the record affirms that the petitioner 
is one of five co-inventors of the patented discovery. The patent document also lists Head, Johnson & 
Kachigian as the representative law firm for the patent. The record is devoid of any evidence that this firm's 
Innovation Law News is a professional, major trade publication or other major media, rather than a newsletter 
sent to the firm's clients to highlight the firm's accomplishments, such as the patent discussed in the submitted 
article. Accordingly this article does not demonstrate the petitioner's eligibility under this criterion. 
The articles citing publications of which the petitioner is a co-author are also insufficient to meet this criterion. 
Citation to the work of other researchers is requisite to articles published in scientific journals. Mere citation of 
a scientist's work by other researchers is not evidence that the citing articles are about the scientist as described 
in the regulation. Without evidence that the citing articles feature or substantively discuss the scientist's cited 
work, citations alone will not satisfy this criterion. On page six of his appellate brief, counsel claims that the 
petitioner "has been cited at least fifty-five times as positive authority in some of the most respected and 
prestigious scientific journals in her field. This constitutes that her research is recognized as being innovative 
and groundbreaking." Although publications co-authored by the petitioner in this case may be cited as "positive 
authority," none of the submitted citing articles feature or substantively discuss the petitioner's cited work in a 
manner reflective of the requisite sustained acclaim. 
Counsel lists the impact factors and rankings of some of the journals in which the petitioner's work has been 
cited as evidence of the journals7 prestige. Yet the record contains no primary evidence of these factors or 
rankings. Without documentary evidence to support a claim, the assertions of counsel will not satisfy the 
petitioner's burden of proof. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 
I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Matter ofRamirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503,506 (BIA 1980). The record also does 
not support counsel's claim that the petitioner's work has been cited "at least fifty-five times." The record 
contains citation information for four articles of which the petitioner is a co-author and a patent application on 
which she is identified as a co-inventor.' The record indicates that these sources have been cited a combined 
total of 29 times, not the 55 times alleged by counsel. Moreover, the petitioner submitted no evidence that, at 
the time of filing, she had been cited as the lead author of any publications in scholarly journals. The citing 
1 Two of the submitted articles include the following citation: V.P. Mocharla, 
P.M.M. Del and A. Shirali, PCT Int. Appl. WO 9839323, Chem. Abstr., 1998, 129, 245037." The record 
does not document this application or its publication in Chemical Abstracts. 
Page 5 
articles thus do not constitute published material about the petitioner in a manner indicative of sustained national 
or international acclaim. 
Finally, we note that in his recommendation letter, the petitioner's supervisor at Baylor University, Professor 
Pinne states that "the research efforts of the Pinney Group (which included significant contributions b41(1 
were featured on local television (CBS and ABC) as short separate segments and in an article 
published in the Waco Tribune Herald newspaper." The record contains no documentation of these television - - 
segments or newspaper article. Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
(v) Evidence of the alien S original scientrfic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of 
major signifiCance in the field. 
In relation to this criterion, the petitioner originally submitted five recommendation letters; evidence of the 
publication, citation and presentation of her research; and documentation of two patents and two patent 
applications on which she is listed as a co-inventor. The director's decision does not explicitly state whether or 
not he found the petitioner to meet this criterion. As noted by counsel on appeal, the director first states that "it 
appears that the petitioner has established eligibility under this criterion," but then equivocally states that "[tlhe 
record still did not sufficiently document evidence to corroborate the significance of the petitioner's scientific 
contributions with regards to its originality, contribution to the scientific community, and how it set the 
petitioner apart individually as being internationally recognized of [sic] having extraordinary ability" (emphasis 
in original). Regardless of this ambiguity, a full review of the record establishes that the petitioner does not 
meet this criterion. 
The record contains eight recommendation letters (including three letters submitted on appeal) written by the 
petitioner's supervisors, collaborators, colleagues and one apparently independent expert in her field. While 
such letters provide relevant information about an alien's experience and accomplishments, they cannot by 
themselves establish the alien's eligibility under this criterion because they do not demonstrate that the alien's 
work is of major significance in his or her field beyond the limited number of individuals with whom he or she 
has worked directly. Even when written by independent experts, letters solicited by an alien in support of an 
immigration petition carry less weight than preexisting, independent evidence of major contributions that one 
would expect of an alien who has achieved sustained national or international acclaim. Accordingly, we review 
the letters as they relate to other evidence of the petitioner's contributions. 
The letters primarily discuss three areas of research to which the petitioner has contributed. First, while a 
doctoral student and then a postdoctoral research associate at Baylor University, the petitioner worked on 
discovering new antitumor protein tubulin and on developing new vascular targeting 
agents for cancer chemotherapy. Associate Professor of Chemistry at Baylor University and 
the petitioner's former "is clearly a first-rate chemist, and her scientific 
contributions are of the utmost importance and si nificance on both a National and International level." As 
evidence of these contributions, Professo 
!@ 
ites the fact that the petitioner is "a co-inventor on several 
patent applications and a number of issue patents, a co-author on three published manuscripts, and . . . has 
made numerous presentations at both local and National scientific meetings." 
Other letters- value of the petitioner's contributions while working in ~rofessorw 
laboratory. Chief Scientific Officer and Head of Research and Develo ment at Oxigene 
Incorporated, states that he has known the petitioner since 1999 as a scientific collaborator.* claims 
Page 6 
that the petitioner "developed many lead drug candidates, some of which are in prodrug form [and] are being 
evaluated in mice at Lund, Sweden," but the record contains no corroborative evidence of this 
evaluation in Sweden. also states that the petitioner's work "on synthesis and development of novel 
vascular targeting anticancer agents for the treatment of solid tumors . . . has already resulted in several patents, - - - 
some of which Oxigene Inc. has licensed." The record contains a printout from Oxigene's website entitled 
"Next Generation Drug Developments," which states that "[tlhrough a drug development alliance with Baylor 
Universi OXiGENE is working on a new generation of small molecule vascular targeting agents." However, 
neither wetter nor the printout identify the patents (of which the petitioner is a co-inventor) that 
purportedly have been licensed by Oxigene. 
Senior Investigator at the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health, 
known the petitioner since 1997 when she was a graduate student and they "began a 
collaboration to investigate interactions of compounds she synthesized with tubulin, an important cancer agent." 
-0nsiders the petitioner to be "an outstanding research scientist and an expert in her field." He states 
that the petitioner's "work has yielded new molecular frameworks for design of antitubulin agents, and she has 
synthesized highly active agents. Her work has been of major importance, and she has successfully synthesized 
compounds that have eluded other organic chemists in this competitive field." 
~ssistant Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry at the University of California, San 
Diego, first notes that he recommends the petitioner "based on the importance of the she is doin sic] and her 
contributions to the cancer research area, as outlined in her curriculum vitae." Professo dh states that during her doctoral studies, the petitioner "designed and developed several molecular frameworks as antimitotic, 
anticancer agents. As evidenced by her publications and presentations, several of the compounds that she has 
designed and synthesized have demonstrated excellent in vitro biological activities and have shown great 
promise as potential therapeutic agents." ~rofessolso notes that the petitioner "has done research [on] 
the development of vascular targeting agents for solid tumors," but does not discuss any particular contributions 
she has made in this area. 
Senior Research Investigator at the Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharmaceutical Research 
Institute, explains that he met the petitioner while Professor Finney's laboratory and has 
been familiar with her work over the last five years. laims that the petitioner "is amongst top 
level of scientists [sic]" and that "[dlue to the high of her work her research has 
enjoyed widespread recognition from the scientific community here in the United States." states 
that the petitioner's "contributions in the development of antimitotic agents as anticancer drugs resulted in 
several extremely active compounds that have demonstrated excellent reduction in cancer cell Many of 
these compounds have been selected by National Cancer Institute to be tested in the NCI-60 cancer cell line 
panel for the development of these compounds as potential drugs." 
The record does not support many of the letters' claims regarding the petitioner's contributions while at Baylor 
University. At the time of filing, the petitioner had contributed to research performed at ~rofessor- 
laboratory that was published in three articles in scientific journals. The petitioner is a co-author of each of 
these articles. The first article entitled "Characterization and Structural Analyses of Trimethoxy and 
Triethoxybenzo[b]thiophene" and published in 1998 in the Journal of Chemical C stallopphy has been cited 
five times, including one self-citation by the article's lead author, ProfessodThe second article entitled 
"A New Anti-Tubulin Agent Containing the Benzo[b]thiophene Ring System" and published in 1999 in 
Bioorganic & Medicinul Chemistry Letters has been cited 14 times including two self-citations by the lead and 
Page 7 
co-authors. The third article entitled "Preparation of New Anti-Tubulin Ligands through a Dual-Mode, 
Addition-Elimination Reaction to a Bromo-Substituted a, (3-Unsaturated Sulfoxide" and published in 2000 in the 
Journal of Organic Chemistry has been cited twice. The petitioner submitted printouts from the websites of 
these three journals demonstrating that they are established publications that subject submitted articles to peer- 
review. Despite counsel's claims regarding the prestige of two of these journals (made on pages six and seven 
of his appellate brief), the record contains no corroborative evidence of these journals' impact factors, rankings 
or any other evidence that they are highly regarded publications in the petitioner's field. The petitioner also 
submitted evidence of six papers concerning research done at Baylor University that were presented at various 
scientific conferences. The petitioner is the lead author of two of these papers, but the record contains no 
evidence that the papers were exceptionally well-received or other evidence that they document original 
contributions of major significance to her field. 
The record also contains documentation of two U.S. patents and two patent applications that list the petitioner as 
one of five co-inventors for discoveries made while the petitioner was working at Baylor University. To 
establish eligibility under this category by virtue of patents, a petitioner must not only show that his or her work 
has been granted a patent, but that the patented invention constitutes a scientific contribution of major 
significance to his or her field. As our office has repeatedly stated, the significance of the patented invention 
mist be determined on a case-by-case basis. See ~atter of New York State be 't. of ~rans-.,-22 I&N Dec. 21 5, 
221 n.7 (Comm. 1998). A letter submitted on appeal from Professor of Chemistry at the 
Scripps Research Institute, states that "[tlhe issuance of patents for [the petitioner's] work with real world 
application in this field demonstrates the importance of her contributions and the potential of her work in 
medical research. These patents have been licensed by Oxigene Inc. . . . and are being developed by them as 
anti cancer agents. Very few issued patents are utilized in real life." However, as previously mentioned, the 
record contains no primary evidence of the licensure or development of the patents by-Oxigene. The record also 
contains copies of two articles that cite a patent application on which the petitioner is listed as a co-inventor 
("PCT Int. Appl. WO 9839323") that was apparently published or discussed in Chemical Abstracts in 1998. 
Supra n. 1. The record suggests, but does not establish, that this application eventually resulted in a patent 
granted in 2000. 
The evidence thus does not demonstrate that the petitioner meets this criterion through her work at Baylor 
University. Although the support letters affirm that her work was highly valued by her supervisor and is well 
regarded by six other individuals who have worked with her and one independent expert, other evidence does 
not support the claimed significance of the petitioner's work. The petitioner's research contributed to just three 
publications of which she is a co-author. These articles have been cited a combined total of 18 times by 
independent research teams. While notable, this publication and citation record does not demonstrate that the 
documented research constitutes original contributions of major significance to the petitioner's field (let alone 
contributions that can be primarily attributed to the petitioner) in a manner reflective of sustained national or 
international acclaim. The record also does not corroborate Oxigene's purported licensure and development of 
patented compounds of which the petitioner is a co-inventor. 
the petitioner's recent work at the Scripps Institute also does not meet this 
criterion. Associate Professor and the petitioner's supervisor at the Scripps Institute, 
"pursuing advanced research to find inhibitors of metalloproteinases that 
are involved in various deadly diseases . . . . She has had great success in applying the novel in situ 'click 
chemistry' strategy for the development of agents that block the action of disease-related proteins. . . . Within 
less than 16 months, [the petitioner] has developed extremely potent subnanomolar inhibitors of the enzyme 
Page 8 
Carbonic Anhydrase using this in situ 'click chemisby' strategy." Professor Nobel Laureate in 
Chemistry and a colleague of Professor at the Scripps Institute, affirms that the petitioner "has used a 
novel technique called in situ 'click chemistry' to successfully develop extremely active inhibitors of the 
enzyme carbonic anhydrase that may provide treatments for diseases like convulsions, glaucoma and even 
cancer." 
Anstead, Assistant Professor in the Division of Infectious Diseases at the University of Texas 
clence Center in San Antonio. states that he became acauainted with the petitioner while she was 
working at Baylor University. ~rofesso~lso heralds the petitioner's "work on click chemistry, a new 
novel protocol for the development of drugs[, that1 is making a great impact that might change the future of the - - - - 
drug discovery field" and notes that her recent research "has been accepted for in the prestigious 
peer-reviewed journal of chemistry, Angewandte Chemie." On appeal, the petitioner submitted a copy of the 
galley proof of an article entitled "In Situ Click Chemistry: Enzyme-Generated Inhibitors of Carbonic 
Anhydrase II" which lists her as the lead author. A galley proof is not evidence of actual publication. 
Moreover, this evidence arose after the petition was filed and consequently cannot be considered. 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. See 8 C.F.R. $ 103.2(b)(12), Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N 
Dec. 45, 49 (Comm. 1971). The record contains no other evidence that the petitioner's work at the Scripps 
Institute had resulted in contributions of major significance to her field at the time of filing. 
Finally, we acknowledge the evidence regarding the petitioner's work in India prior to her arrival in the United 
States. Professor 
9 
the petitioner's current supervisor, briefly notes that the petitioner worked "on the 
synthesis of an antl-ast ma drug at the Indian Institute of Chemical Technology, India, which is one of India's 
premier research institutes." The record shows that the petitioner is a co-author of an article concerning 
research performed at the Indian Institute of Technology that was published in 1995 in Tetrahedron and has 
been cited six times, including four self-citations by the article's lead author. Co-authorship of an article that 
has been cited only twice by independent research teams does not evidence an original scientific contribution of 
major significance to the petitioner's field. Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
(vi) Evidence of the aiien's authorship of scholarly articles in the Jield, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
As noted by counsel on appeal, the director did not clearly state whether or not the petitioner met this criterion. 
The director first stated that "it appears that the petitioner has established eligibility under this criterion," but 
then noted that the petitioner is not the principal author of any of the submitted articles. Regardless of the 
director's equivocal discussion, the record does not satisfy this criterion. Frequent publication of research 
findings is inherent to success as an established scientist and does 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 experts or other proof that the alien's publications have 
had a significant impact in his or her field. 
As discussed above under the third and fifth criteria, the petitioner submitted evidence that she is the co-author 
of four articles published in refereed scientific journals. These articles have been cited a combined total of 18 
times by independent research teams. At the time of filing, the record indicates that the petitioner had published 
no journal articles as a lead author. This publication record does not reflect the sustained national or 
Page 9 
international acclaim requisite to classification as an alien with extraordinary ability. Accordingly, the 
petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
The petitioner originally submitted documentation of her conference presentations as evidence under this 
criterion. The director did not consider this evidence because this "regulatory criterion plainly refers to 'artistic' 
exhibitions or showcases.'' Even if we considered the petitioner's conference papers under this category 
pursuant to the comparable evidence provision of 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(4), we would find them insufficient. As 
noted above under the fifth criterion, the record documents six papers presented at various scientific 
conferences. The petitioner is the lead author of two of these papers, but the record contains no evidence that 
the petitioner's research was exceptionally well received or otherwise distinguished from that of other 
conference participants. For example, the record includes no evidence that the petitioner was a featured speaker 
or that her papers won awards at any of the conferences. The submitted documents about the American 
Chemical Society (ACS) and the ACS Division of Organic Chemistry do not demonstrate that presentation of a 
paper at the ACS National Meetings or the latter division's National Organic Symposium is in and of itself 
reflective of national or international acclaim in the petitioner's field. Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet 
this criterion. 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments 
that have a distinguished reputation. 
The director determined that the petitioner did not meet this criterion and counsel does not contest that 
conclusion on appeal. 
An immigrant visa will be granted to an alien under section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. fj 1 153(b)(l)(A), 
only if the alien can establish extraordinary ability through extensive documentation of sustained national or 
international acclaim demonstrating that the alien has risen to the very top of his or her field. The evidence in 
this case indicates that the petitioner has made meaningful contributions to medicinal chemistry through her 
research of anti-cancer agents. However, the record does not establish that, at the time of filing, the petitioner 
had achieved sustained national or international acclaim placing her at the very top of her field. She is thus 
ineligible for classification as an alien with extraordinary ability pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 
U.S.C. fj 11 53(b)(l)(A), and her petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. 9 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be 
dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.