dismissed EB-1A Case: Molecular And Cell Biology

identifying data deleted to 
prevent cle,:i"Y ;.;nwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
~muccoPY 
DATE: NAY 0 9 20120FFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
u.s. Department of Homeland Security 
u.s. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(1 )(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act; 8 U.S.c. § I I 53(b)(1 )(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the 
documents related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please 
be advised that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. 
The specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, with a fee of$630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) requires that any motion must 
be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
T~nk you,!~ I 
-~?..:"-
r 
PerryRhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas 
Service Center, on September 22, 2010, 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. § 1153(b)(l)(A), as an 
alien of extraordinary ability. The director determined that the petitioner had not established the 
requisite extraordinary ability and failed to submit extensive documentation of sustained national or 
international acclaim. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the 
statute that the petitioner demonstrate "sustained national or international acclaim" and present 
"extensive documentation" of his or her achievements. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act and 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that an alien can 
establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement, 
specifically a major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the 
regulation outlines ten categories of specific evidence. 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) through (x). The 
petitioner must submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory categories of 
evidence to establish the basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, the petitioner claims to meet at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(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 
I The AAO notes that Fonn 1-290, Notice of Appeal or Motion, was filed and signed by the petitioner. Although the 
petitioner was r~_ regarding his Fonn 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, there is 
no evidence that_ is involved with the filing of this appeal. Moreover, the appeal was not filed with a 
new and properly executed Fonn G-28, Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Representative, as required 
pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R § 292.4(a}. As such,_ is not recognized as the attorney of record 
for this proceeding. 
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. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 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 H.R. 723 101 st Cong., 2d 
Sess. 59 (1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). The term "extraordinary ability" 
refers only to those individuals in that small percentage who have risen to the very top ofthe field of 
endeavor. !d.; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's 
sustained acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be 
established either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international 
recognized award) or through the submission of qualifYing evidence under at least three of the ten 
categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a 
petition filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although 
the court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the AAO's 
evaluation of evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion.2 With respect to the criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised 
legitimate concerns about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, 
those concerns should have been raised in a subsequent "final merits determination." !d. at 1121-
22. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the 
petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed 
to satisfY the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." [d. at 
1122 (citing to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). 
2 Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary requirements 
beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Page 4 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then 
considered in the context of a final merits determination. In this matter, the AAO will review the 
evidence under the plain language requirements of each criterion claimed. As the petitioner did not 
submit qualifYing evidence under at least three criteria, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner 
has failed to satisfY the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. !d. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria3 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
In the director's decision, he determined that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for this 
criterion. In the petitioner's brief submitted on appeal, he did not contest the findings of the director 
fOr this criterion or offer additional arguments. The AAO, therefore, considers this issue to be 
abandoned. See Sepulveda v. US. Auy Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (I Ith Cir. 2005); Hristov v. 
Roark, No. 09-CV-273l2011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *1, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (the court 
fOund the plaintiffs claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO). 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is 
sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and 
any necessary translation. 
The director determined that the petitioner established eligibility for this criterion. Based on a 
review of the record of proceeding, the AAO must withdraw the decision of the director for this 
criterion. The petitioner submitted the following documentation: 
1. An article August 2010, by ••• 
~ Reviews Molecular Cell Biology; 
2. An article entitled, September 2008, by_ 
3. 
Reviews Molecular Cell Biology; 
An article entitled, ••••••• ' July 2010, by _, Nature 
Structural & Molecular Biology; 
J On appeal, the petitioner does not claim to meet any of the regulatory categories of evidence not discussed in this 
decision. 
Page 5 
4. 
5. 
6. 
in the Nucleus," July 25, 2008, by 
An article entitled, June 24, 
2010, unidentified au""v., Natur{': 
An article entitled, •••••••••••• " July 25, 2008, 
unidentified author, Science; 
7. An article 
8. 
9. 
August 28, 2008, unidentified author, 
NewsRx; 
December 5, 2005, unidentified author, 
NewsRx; 
unidentified 
www.flOOObiology.com; and 
10. A screenshot regarding comments fur an article entitled, 
unidentified date, 
unidentified author, www.flOOObiology.com. 
The petitioner also submitted a letter from Dr. Ailong Ke who stated: 
First, citations simply reference an individual's work. Articles citing an individual's 
work are primary [sic] about the author's own work, but not the individual's work. 
[The petitioner] has identified two new genes, nrde-2 and nrde-3, in Nature 2010 
and Science 2008. Although the two reports b~ mentioned [the 
petitioner's] name as once in each article, they have mentioned "nrde-
2" eleven time times and "nrde-3" twenty-seven times throughout the whole articles 
respectively. Both ofthese two reports by Arianne Heinrichs have refereed only [the 
petitioner's] work at the end of each article. 
Second, the two reports didn't mention any other researchers' or the author '::::-
1lIIII1IIIII1IIIII1IIII research work, indicating that the two articles written by I 
_Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology 11,539-539 (30 June 2010) and 
Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology 9, 666-666 (13 August 2008), are not 
research citations that simply cited [the petitioner's] work, but as reports on [the 
petitioner's] breakthrough discoveries. 
Although in the director's decision he indicated that _ statements demonstrated the 
petitioner's eligibility for this criterion, the documentary evidence submitted by the petitioner is 
insufficient to meet the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) that requires 
"[p]ublished material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought." In other words, 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(iii) requires that the published material be "about" the 
petitioner relating to his work. Compare 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(i)(3)(i)(C) relating to outstanding 
researchers or professors pursuant to section 203(b)(I)(B) of the Act, which only requires 
"[p]ublished material in professional publications written by others about the alien's work in the 
academic field." 
In the case here, none of the items listed above reflect published material about the petitioner 
relating to his work. Instead, as correctly stated by Dr. Ke, the articles report on the findings of the 
petitioner's research; the articles reflect no discussion "about" the petitioner. The articles simply 
credit the petitioner as one of the authors ofthe research. Again, while the AAO does not dispute 
that the articles are about the petitioner's research, the documentary evidence submitted by the 
petitioner does not meet the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(iii) that 
requires "published material about the alien . .. relating to the alien's work in the field [emphasis 
added]." As such, the AAO withdraws the decision of the director for this criterion. While the 
articles are not relevant to this criterion, they will be considered below as they relate to the 
significance of the petitioner's original contnbutions under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.S(h)(3)(v). 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific. scholarly. artistic. athletic. or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field. 
In the director's decision, he determined that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility fur this 
criterion. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(v) requires "[e]vidence of 
the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major 
significance in the field." Here, the evidence must be reviewed to see whether it rises to the level of 
original scientific or scholarly-related contributions "of major significance in the field." The phrase 
"major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, it has some meaning. Silverman v. Eastrich 
Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., SI F. 3d 28, 31 (3,d Cir. 1995) quoted in APWUv. Potter, 343 F.3d 
619,626 (2nd Cir. Sep IS, 2003). 
As indicated above, the petitioner authored articles that were published in Nature ("Small 
Regulatory RNAs Inhibit RNA Polymerase II During the Elongation Phase of Transcription") and 
Science ("An Argonaute Transports siRNAs from the Cytoplasm to the Nucleus"). On appeal, the 
petitioner claims that "without remarkable scientific originality and advances, a researcher's work 
will not be published by these two most prestigious professional journals." While publication of 
one's research in Nature or Science, as well as any other professional publication, generally 
demonstrates the petitioner's original contnbutions in the form of original research and findings, the 
Page 7 
AAO is not persuaded that every research article published in Nature or Science signifies an original 
contribution of major significance in the field. Furthermore, the regulations contain a separate 
criterion regarding the authorship of scholarly articles. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). The AAO will 
not presume that evidence relating to or even meeting the scholarly articles criterion is presumptive 
evidence that the petitioner also meets this criterion. To hold otherwise would render meaningless 
the regulatory requirement that a petitioner meet at least three separate criteria Therefore, while the 
petitioner's scholarly articles will not be considered under this criterion, they will be addressed 
under the next criterion. However, the scholarly articles are relevant to the criterion with regard to 
the impact they have had on the field which is demonstrated by citations or other documentary 
evidence. 
According to the screenshots submitted by the petitioner from lSI Web of Knowledge and Google 
Scholar, the Science article has never been cited by others in their own work. The AAO notes that 
the article was published in June 2010, approximately one month prior to the filing of the petition. 
Regarding the Nature article, it has been cited about 25 times at the time of the filing of the petition. 
The petitioner also submitted citations regarding eight .. 43 
citations others. The article ~~~ 
times. 
While the number of total citations is a factor, it is not the only factor to be considered in 
determining the petitioner's eligibility for this criterion. Generally, the number of citations is 
reflective of the petitioner's original findings and that the field has taken some interest to the 
petitioner's work. However, it is not an automatic indicator that the petitioner's work has been of 
major significance in the field. In the case here, the AAO is not persuaded that the petitioner'S 
highest cited articles of 25 times each are reflective that the petitioner's work has been of major 
significance in the field. Merely SUbmitting documentation reflecting that the petitioner's work has 
been cited by others in their published material is insufficient to establish eligibility for this criterion 
without documentary evidence reflecting that the petitioner's work has been ofa major significance 
in the field. The AAO is not persuaded that the moderate citations of the petitioner's articles are 
reflective ofthe significance of his work in the field, including zero citations fur his Science article 
and 25 citations for his Nature article. The petitioner failed to establish how those findings or 
citations of his work by others have significantly contributed to his field as a whole. 
The petitioner's evidence also includes documentation that the he has presented his findings at a few 
college-sponsored seminars such as at Florida State University, the University of British Columbia, 
and Nanyang Technological University, and at a few scientific conferences and symposia such as at 
the Keystone Symposia, the 17th International C. Elegans Meeting, and the 12'h Annual Meeting of 
the RNA Society. Many professional fields regularly hold conferences and symposia to present 
new work, discuss new findings, and to network with other professionals. These conferences are 
promoted and sponsored by professional associations, businesses, educational institutions, and 
government agencies. Participation in such events, however, does not equate to an original 
Page 8 
contnbution of major significance in the field. There is no evidence showing that the petitioner's 
conference presentations have been frequently cited by independent researchers or have otherwise 
significantly impacted the field. 
Again, while the presentation of the petitioner's research demonstrates that his work was shared 
with others and may be acknowledged as original contributions based on the selection ofthem to be 
presented, the AAO is not persuaded that presentations of the petitioner's work at several venues are 
sufficient evidence establishing that his work is of major significance to the field as a whole and not 
limited to the engagements in which they were presented. The petitioner failed to establish that the 
presentations were of major significance so as to establish their impact or influence beyond the 
audience at the conferences. 
As mentioned under the published material criterion, the petitioner submitted several articles that 
reported on the petitioner's research and authored material. Again, while the articles demonstrate 
the petitioner's original contributions through his research and findings, they fall short in 
establishing that they have already been of major significance in the field. In fact, the articles 
speculate on the possible implications of the petitioner's research. For example, regarding item 3 
from the published material discussion, the article states: 
Although it is not yet clear that Rbp7 is involved in RNAi, both NRDE-2 and 
NRDE-3 interact with pre-mRNAs, hinting at a co-transcriptional function .... 
Further investigation will elucidate the mechanism of silencing in this system as well 
as whether nrde-2 and nrde-3 are directly involved, and it will be interesting to see 
whether the homo logs ofnrde-2 in other species are involved in a similar process. 
[emphasis added] 
Similarly, regarding item 4 from the published material discussion, the article states: 
Because the Argonaute protein Ag02 is the only known endonuclease among the 
human Argonaute proteins, it is very likely that Ag02 mediates nuclear RNAi in 
human cells. How are human Ag02 and C. elegans NRDE-3 imported into the 
nucleus, and how are these importing pathways regulated? Further study in this 
direction will not only lead to a better understanding of the mechanisms underlying 
nuclear RNAi, but will also show new ways of improving RNAi as a tool for 
research and therapy. 
[emphasis added] 
While these articles, as well as the other articles submitted by the petlhoner, report on the 
petitioner's research immediately after they were published in Nature and Science, there is no 
evidence reflecting that the petitioner's contributions have already impacted or influenced the field 
is a significant manner. The articles discuss by far the possible implications that may lead to further 
research rather than how the research can already be considered as an original contnbution of major 
significance in the field. 
Page 9 
Likewise, the petitioner submitted several recommendation letters that speculate on the future 
promise of the petitioner's work instead of indicating how it has already been of major significance 
in the field. For instance tated that the petitioner's "research could help to design anti­
virus small RNA drugs that are more stable and more powerful [emphasis added]." Moreover,_ 
stated that the petitioner's "research will benefit the health care industry in the 
United States [emphasis added]," and the petitioner "will be able to contribute to the field of 
drug discovery [emphasis added]." Furthermore, stated that the 
petitioner's "innovative work provides a potential drug target for cancer diagnosis [emphasis 
added]," and "[t]hese double strand RNA hold great potential in treating genetic disorders 
[emphasis added]." In addition, stated that the petitioner's "work may permit 
clinicians to administer a single dose of a particular small RNAs to stably shut down a gene 
[emphasis added]," and the petitioner's "research may enable the therapeutic use of small RNAs in 
treating human maladies like cancer and cardiovascular disease [emphasis added]." 
A petitioner cannot file a petition under this classification based on the expectation of future 
eligibility. Given the descriptions in terms offuture applicability and determinations that may occur 
at a later date, it appears that the petitioner's research, while original, is still ongoing and that the 
findings he has made are not currently being implemented in his field. Again, while the AAO 
acknowledges the originality of the petitioner's findings, the letters do not indicate that anyone is 
currently applying the petitioner's research findings, so as to establish that these findings have 
already impacted the field in a significant manner. Accordingly, while the AAO does not dispute 
the originality ofthe petitioner's research and findings, as well as the fact that the field has taken 
some notice of his work, the actual present impact of the petitioner's work has not been established. 
Rather, the petitioner's references appear to speculate about how the petitioner's findings may affect 
the field at some point in the future. Eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. 
§§ I03.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). A petition 
cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. 
Matter of Izummi. 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Comm'r 1998). That decision further provides, citing 
Matter of Bardouille. 18 I&N Dec. 114 (BrA 1981), that USCIS cannot "consider facts that come 
into being only subsequent to the filing of a petition." Id. at 176. Many of the letters proffered do 
in fact discuss far more persuasively the future promise of the petitioner's research and the impact 
that may result from his work, rather than how his past research already qualifies as a contribution 
of major significance in the field. The assertion that the petitioner's research results are likely to be 
influential is not adequate to establish that his findings are already recognized as major 
contnbutions in the field. While the experts praise the petitioner's research and work as both novel 
and of great potential interest, the fact remains that any measurable impact that results from the 
petitioner's research wi11likely occur in the future. 
Further, the petitioner submitted recommendation letters that described the petitioner'S original 
~not demonstrate that it was of major significance in the field. For example. 
~tated that the petitioner's "findings help shape the development of methods for 
effective small RNA drug delivery, and for evaluating the potency, stability and specificity of these 
drugs." However,_ failed to identifY which methods, if any, that have been developed as 
• 
Page 10 
a result of the petitioner's res,eru·ch. so as to demonstrate original contnbutions of major significance 
in the field. Likewise, stated: 
[The petitioner] identified certain viral elements [that] could bind cellular factors of 
the human host and mediate their own gene expression. He was also first to uncover 
the mechanism that how these viral elements and cellular factors stabilize viral 
mRNA and regulate gene viral gene expression. These findings have suggested new 
drug targets to defeat viral infection. 
bri!:t1y discussed the petitioner's original research and subsequent findings. Yet_ 
significance in the field. 
that have been develo:ped 
. originals contnbutions have been of major 
example, failed to indicate the types of "drug targets" 
petitioner's research. 
Furthermore, the recommendation letters praised the petitioner's research skills. For example, • 
that the petitioner "has consistently shown terrific scientific creativity and 
extraordinary analytical skills combined with working very hard." However, none of the letters 
indicated how the petitioner's skills or personal traits are original contnbutions of major 
significance to the field. Merely having a diverse skill set is not a contnbution of major significance 
in and of itself. Rather, the record must be supported by evidence that the petitioner has already 
used those unique skills to impact the field at a significant level in an original way. Furthermore, 
assuming the petitioner's skills are unique, the classification sought was not designed merely to 
alleviate skill shortages in a given field. In fact, that issue properly falls under the jurisdiction of the 
Department of Labor through the alien employment labor certification process. See Matter oj New 
York State Department oJ Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215, 221 (Comm'r 1998). 
While those familiar with the petitioner's work generally descnbe it as "outstanding," 
"extraordinary," and "significant," there is insufficient documentary evidence demonstrating that 
the petitioner's work is of major significance. This regulatory criterion not only requires the 
petitioner to make original contributions, the regulatory criterion also requires those contributions to 
be of major significance. The AAO is not persuaded by vague, solicited letters that simply repeat 
the regulatory language but do not explain how the petitioner's contnbutions have already 
influenced the field. Merely repeating the language ofthe statute or regulations does not satisi)' the 
petitioner's burden of proof. See Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 
1989), afJ'd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Aryr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 
(S.D.N.Y.). The lack of supporting evidence gives the AAO no basis to gauge the significance of 
the petitioner's present contributions. 
Further, USCIS may, in its discretion, use aos advisory opinion statements submitted as expert 
testimony. See Matter oJ Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 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 of support from the petitioner's personal 
contacts 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; see also Matter oj V-K-, 24I&N 
Page II 
Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008). Thus, the content ofthe writers' 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. 
Again, the plain language ofthe regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires "[e]vidence of the 
alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contnbutions of major 
significance in the field [emphasis added]." Without additionaL specific evidence showing that the 
petitioner's work has been unusually influential, widely applied throughout his field, or has 
otherwise risen to the level of contributions of major significance, the AAO cannot conclude that he 
meets this criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence oj the alien's authorship oj scholarly articles in the field, in proJessional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
The director determined that the petitioner established eligibility for this criterion. The plain 
language of the regulation at 8 c.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) requires "[e]vidence of the alien's 
authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media" A review of the record of proceeding reflects that the petitioner submitted sufficient 
documentary evidence demonstrating that he minimally meets the plain language of this regulatory 
criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner established that he meets this criterion. 
B. Summary 
The petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. 
III. CONCLUSION 
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 the field of endeavor. 
Even if the petitioner had submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary 
categories, in accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a final merits 
determination that considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has 
demonstrated: (I) a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage 
who have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor" and (2) "that the alien has sustained 
national or international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field 
of expertise." 8 c.P.R. §§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 P.3d at 1119-20. While the 
AAO concludes that the evidence is not indicative of a level of expertise consistent with the small 
Page 12 
percentage at the very top of the field or sustained national or international acclaim, the AAO need 
not explain that conclusion in a final merits determination.4 Rather, the proper conclusion is that the 
petitioner has failed to satisfY the antecedent regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. Id. 
at 1122. 
The petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the 
petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the 
appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4 The AAO maintains de novo review of all questions ofmct and law. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 
2004). In any future proceeding, the AAO maintains the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits determination as the office 
that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R § 103.5(a){l)(ii). See also section 103(a){l) of the Act; section 
204(b) of the Act; DRS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1,2003); 8 C.F.R § 2.1 (2003); 8 C.F.R 
§ 103.1(f)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of Aurelio, 19 I&N Dec. 458, 460 (BJA 1987) (holding that legacy INS, now 
USCIS, is the sole authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa petitions).