dismissed EB-1A Case: Molecular And Cellular Neurobiology

identifying data deleted to 
prevent c1e2riy unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
DATE: JUL 1 7 2012 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Pt:litioncr: 
Beneficiary: 
[l.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. CitiJ:enship and Immigration Scrvice" 
Administr:ltivc Appcal~ orfice (AAO) 
20 Massachu~ells Av(.'., N.W., MS 2(jl)(I 
Washington, DC 2052LJ-209() 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
211.>(h)( I)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, R U.S.c. § 1153(h)(I)(A) 
ON l3EHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Encl()sed please lind the decision of the Administrative Appeals OITice in your case. All of the documenh 
related to this matter have heen returned to the ollice that originally decided your case. Please he advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must he made to that office. 
If you helieve the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additi()nal 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion 10 reconsider or a motion to reopen in 
aceordanee with the instructiuns on Form I-290B, Nutice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The specific 
requirements Ii" I'ilin~ such a motion can be l(lUnd at R C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion directly with 
the AAO. Please he aware that H C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(I)(i) requires any motion to be tiled within 30 days or thl' 
decision thallhe lllotilHl seeks lo reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
-'4." Q_­()' 7J-- ,0,,-
V Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administf<llivl' Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition on June 14,2011. The petitioner, who is also the beneficiary, appealed the decision with the 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on July 15,2011. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in the sciences, specifically, in 
the field of molecular and cellular neurobiology, pursuant to section 203(b)(I)(A) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(I)(A). The director determined that the petitioner 
has not established the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for 
classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the statute 
that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim'· and present 
··extensive documentation'· of the alien's achievements. See section § 203(b)(I)(A)(i) of the Act; 
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 of a 
major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines 
ten categories of specific objective evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(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 submits a brief and the following documents: (1) an unpublished January 4, 
2010 AAO decision in a case unrelated to the petitioner's case, (2) the director's May 2. 2011 Request 
for Evidence (RFE), (3) the director's June 14, 2011 denial of the petition, (4) an undated document 
entitled ·'Documentation of [the Petiti Articles and Citations to documents 
to the citations of the 
Productivity Index," (8) the petitioner's May 26, 2011 
response to the director's RFE, and (9) the petitioner's April 13, 2011 letter filed in support of her 
petition. While 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c) provides that AAO precedent decisions are binding on all USCIS 
employees in the administration of the Act, unpublished decisions are not similarly binding. The AAO 
will discuss the remaining evidence under the criteria to which it pertains. That said, the AAO docs 
not dispute that a researcher can be credited with collaborative research breakthroughs when the 
evidence supports such a conclusion, the proposition for which counsel submi(ted the unpublished 
AAO decision. 
For the reasons discussed below, the AAO finds that the petitioner has not established her eligibility 
for the exclusive classification sought. Specifically, the AAO finds that the petitioner meets only one 
of the ten regulatory criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), and that, in the final merits determination, 
the petitioner has not demonstrated that she is one of the small percentage who are at the very top of 
the field and she has not dominated sustained national or international acclaim. See 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 204.5(h) (2), (3). Accordingly, the AAO must dismiss the petitioner's appeal. 
Page 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 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 10Ist 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 of the field of 
endeavor. 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, internationally 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.S(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 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 the evidence 
submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion. I 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." Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1121-22. 
I Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary requirements 
beyond Ihose sel forth in the regutations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi). 
Page 4 
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)." Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 
1122 (citing to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3». 
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 case, the AAO finds that the petitioner has not 
met at least three of the ten regulatory criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). In addition, in the 
final merits determination, the petitioner has not shown that she is one of a small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field or that she has sustained national or international acclaim. See Section 
203(b)(I)(A) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 2 
Documentation uf the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
In her April 13, 2011 brief filed in support of the petition, the petitioner asserted that she meets the 
prizes or awards for excellence criterion under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). In her May 
26,2011 response to the director's RFE, however, the petitioner did not further pursue this issue. On 
appeal, the petitioner specifically states that she "no longer c1aim[sJ this criterion." Accordingly, the 
AAO concludes that the petitioner has abandoned this issue, as she did not timely raise it on appeal. 
Sepulveda v. United Stales All y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (lIth Cif. 20(5); Hristov v. Roark, No. 
09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *1, 9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2(11) (the United States District 
Court found the plaintin's claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO). 
Published material abollt the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media. relatinfi 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. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
When the petitioner initially filed the petition, she did not claim to meet the published material about 
the alien criterion under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). The director in her May 2, 2011 
RFE listed a number of articles and stated that the petitioner's "shared research contribution has 
attracted some mainstream national and international professional and other media attention in the field 
of endeavor." The director concluded that the petitioner meets this criterion. The AAO disagrees. See 
Spencer Enterprises, fnc, v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 20Cll), aiI'd, 345 
2 The petitioner does not claim that she meets the regulatory categories of evidence not discussed in this decision. 
Page 5 
F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2(03); see a/so SO/lane v. Dep'l ojJuslice, 381 F.3d 143, 145-46 (3d Cir. 20(4) 
(noting that the AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis). 
As listed in the director's RFE, the petitioner has provided the following documents relating to this 
criterion. 
(l~intout from 
An i of 
The AAO finds that none of the abovementioned documents or other documents in the record establish 
that the petitioner meets this criterion. First, the evidence is insufficient to show that the Nina 
Foundation online printout constitutes published material in a professional or major trade publication 
or other major media. In addition, the Nina Foundation online printout contains no information on the 
date or author(s) of the material, as required under the plain language of the criterion. Second, 
although the petitioner has provided an incomplete copy of a 2008 article published in EMBO, a 
professional or major trade publication, she has not provided evidence on the title or author(s) of the 
published material, as required under the plain language of the criterion. Third, even if the AAO were 
to conclude that the website of PBS's Nova Science Now constitutes other major media, it would not 
find that the online printout - a two-paragraph program description of an episode - constitutes 
published material. Moreover, the PBS online printout lacks information on the author(s) of the two­
paragraph program description, as required under the plain language of the criterion. Fourth, even if 
the AAO were to conclude that the online articles posted on NewsRx.com constitute published 
material in a professional or major trade publication, it would not find that the articles meet the plain 
language of the criterion, as they do not indicate the author(s) of the material. The two "articles" 
posted on NewsRx.com are nearly identical, suggesting they are press releases rather than independent 
journalistic coverage. Finally, none of the material is "about" the petitioner. Rather, the material is 
about articles she has coauthored. Compare 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(C) (requiring published material 
"about the alien's work." 
Accordingly, the AAO concludes that the petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence on published 
material about the petitioner in professional or major trade publications or other major media, relating 
to her work in the field for which classification is sought. The petitioner has not met this criterion. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
Page 6 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific. scholarly. artlsllc. alhletic. or hu.line.ls-related 
contrihutions of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that she meets the original contributions of major significance 
criterion under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § documents include: (1) a 
March 23, 20 II reference letter from obstetrics and 
gynecology at the University of Adelaide (ACS), 
(2) an April 6, 2011 reference letter from at the University of 
Missouri-Kansas City School of Biological Sciences, (3) two reference letters, dated March 30, 2011 
and May 24, 2011, from . at the' of 
School of Medicine, (4) a March 21, 2011 reference letter from 
molecular cell and at the of 
France, 
Although the petitioner's evidence shows she has been involved with a number of research studies that 
her references called "original" and "novel," the evidence is insufficient to show that the research 
constitutes contributions of major significance in the field. To show that the research constitutes major 
significance, the petitioner has presented a number of reference letters stating that her research UHUH'!'" 
puuuo,,,,u in journals, and . 
stated that the 
many times years m vanous sPf:cialltif:s ,rmmrl 
_ stated that the petitioner's research "was published in the Journal of Neuro~ 
journal in the field of neuroscience with an average 5 . factor of 7.93." __ 
also stated that the petitioner published an article a journal that "has a 5-
year average impact factor of 14.198." and National Academy of 
Sciences (PNAS), a journal that "has a 5 stated that 
the 
the petitioner's articles have been 
published in "high-impact," "esteemed" or "leading" researchjoumals and cited by other scientists. 
Page 7 
The AAO finds that publication of and citations to the petitioner's articles are not sufficient to show 
that the petitioner's research constitutes contributions of major significance. First, the regulations 
contain a separate criterion regarding the authorship of published articles. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). If 
the regulations are to be interpreted with any logic, it must be presumed that the regulation views 
contributions as a separate evidentiary requirement from scholarly articles. Publication and presentations 
are not sufficient evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that they were of "major 
signilicance." Kazarian v. USc/S, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 20(9), a[rd in parI, 5% F.3d 1115 
(9th Cir. 2010). In Kazarian, the court reaffirmed its holding that the AAO' s adverse linding under this 
criterion was not an abuse of discretion. 596 F.3d at 1122. Typically, in considering whether a published 
study is a contribution of major significance, the AAO looks at the impact an article has after publication. 
The petitioner has presented insufficient evidence to show that the journals that published her articles 
only publish research findings that are of major significance in the field of molecular and cellular 
neurobiology. As such, the fact that the petitioner's articles were published, even if they were 
published in well-known journals, is not sufficient to show that her research constitutes contributions 
of major significance. 
Second, although the petitioner stated in her brief filed in support of the petition that the number of 
citations of her 2007 article was "4.5 folds higher than the [citation frequency of an average 
neuroscience article]," this evidence is insufficient for the AAO to conclude that the 2007 article or its 
associated research constitutes contributions of major significance. Specifically, the AAO lacks 
sufficient evidence to conclude how much more frequently an article should be cited as compared to 
the citation frequency of an average article for it to be considered a contribution of major significance 
in the field. Also, simply exceeding the average is insufficient; the citation level must be consistent 
with a contribution of major significance. On appeal, the petitioner also claims that "[her] research 
performance is among or sometimes even better than the top 10 research university faculty in the field 
of neuroscience." Once again, the AAO finds the comparison between the petitioner's citation 
frequency and the average citation frequency of neuroscience faculty misplaced. 
Third. although many of the petitioner's reference letters mention the 5-year impact factor of journals 
that published the petitioner's articles, the AAO finds that the impact factor of a journal does not 
equate the impact factor of a particular article published in the journal. As such, the impact factor of 
journals is nol sut1icient to show that the petitioner's articles and the associated research findings 
published in the journals constitute contributions of major significance. 
Fourth, the AAO finds that the petitioner'S attendance at the 2007 Neurobiology of Drosophila 
International Conference and the 7th International Brain Research Organization (!BRO) World 
Congress of Neuroscience does not establish that her research constitutes contributions of major 
the field of molecular and cellular neurobiology. Although both the petitioner and 
stated that the petitioner was one of about 50 scientists who gave an oral presentation 
Neur{)biolc'gy of Drosophila International Conference, neither provided evidence on 
the ultimate impact of her presentation after the conference. 
Page 8 
Fifth, that the Handbook of Cell Signaling is "a highly-respected, widely used 
reference book in biomedical research." The petitioner's coauthor of the chapter in that book, _ 
_ however, asserts that the chapter is a "review chapter." The petitioner has not demonstrated 
that this chapter is an "original" contribution in the field rather than the compilation of the work of 
others. 
Moreover, the petitioner's assertion that "[she] was one of [] only 4 recIpients (<1 %) who were 
selected for the Australasian Chronobiology Society (ACS) Travel Award to present and speak at the 
[7th !BRO] World Congress [of Neuroscience]" is misleading. Although the petitioner claims that 
there were nearly 2,500 participants at the she has not any evidence that all of the 
participants applied for the ACS Travel Award. March 23, 20 II letter states 
that the $500 ACS Travel Award was open to in attending the conference. 
Neither the letter nor other evidence in the record, however, indicates how many people actually 
applied for the award. As such, the AAO finds the petitioner's statement that she was one of less than 
one percent who received the award misleading. Moreover, although_stated that 
the award applicants were "evaluated and judged based on the originality of the studies. the 
significance of the findings and the overall merit of the applicants," neither the letter nor other 
evidence in the record establishes that the petitioner received the award because her research 
constitutes contributions of major significance in the field. 
Additionally, the MO concludes that ___ assertion that the petitioner's research, which 
identified "most, ifnot all, the phospho~fluenced his own research insufficient to show 
the significance of the petitioner's research. Likewise, the petitioner asserts that other scientists - she 
listed seven in her brief filed in support of the petition - have relied on her research or sought her 
advice on their research. One scientist's finding that influences the research of another scientist, or a 
handful of scientists. does not show that the scientist's finding constitutes contributions of a major 
SI~:mJllC;"[J(;e in the field, as required under the plain language of the criterion. Although Professor 
that "i ncreasing PVI{' ,,,n 
. not provide any on these 
were to conclude that the petitioner's 2007 study is original 
or novel, it would it constitutes a contribution of major significance in the field. 
Similarly, that the was "a lead researcher" of a project that 
was reported in the PBS's show Nova Science Now to indicate how many lead 
researchers were involved in the project or participation in the project 
constitutes an original contribution of major significance III the field of molecular and cellular 
neurobiology. 
Initially, the petitioner submitted a few articles that thank the petitioner, among others, for providing a 
specific plasmid or confocal microscopy. While the petitioner'S research is clearly applicable in the 
field, these few articles cannot demonstrate that her work has had an impact consistent with a 
contribution of major significance. It does not follow that every researcher who performs original 
Page Y 
research that adds to the general pool of knowledge and produces useful products has inherently made 
a contribution of major significance to the field as a whole. 
Finally. some of the letter~culate that the petitioner's work will constitute a contribution in 
the future. For example,_in whose laboratory the petitioner was working at the time the 
petitioner filed the petition, asserts that her "'fly model for axon injury' will pioneer a new path for 
neuroscientists to approach [spinal chord injury 1 and will provide valuable insight to understand axonal 
degeneration in other neurological disorders as wei!." While _ asserts that the petitioner's 
work with the Drosophila model has already had an impact, her support for this assertion includes the 
published material discussed above, which is minimal and includes promotional press releases. 
The Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board) has held that testimony should not be disregarded 
simply because it is "selt~serving." See, e.g., Matter of S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 1328, 1332 (BIA 2000) 
(citing cases). The Board also held, however: "We not only encourage, but require the introduction of 
corroborative testimonial and documentary evidence, where available." Id. If testimonial evidence 
lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for the petitioner to submit corroborative 
evidence. Matter ofY-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). 
Vague, solicited letters from local colleagues that do not specifically identify contributions or provide 
specific examples of how those contributions influenced the field are insufficient. Kazariall 1'. USc/S, 
580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009), alTd in part, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 20 lO).' The opinions of 
experts in the field are not without weight and have been considered above. USCIS may, in its 
discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron 
International, 19 I&N Dec. 791,795 (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 from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; 
USCIS may, as this decision has done above, evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they 
support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795; see also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 
2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). USCIS may 
even givc less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated, in accord with other information or is in 
any way questionable. Jd. at 795; see also Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm·r. 1998) 
(citing Mauer of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'!. Comm'r. 1972)). 
The letters considered above primarily contain bare assertions of acclaim and vague claims of 
contributions without specifically identifying contributions and providing specific examples of how 
those contributions rise to a level consistent with major significance in the field. Merely repeating the 
language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. See Fedin Bros. 
Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aJJ'd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d Cir. 1990); Avyr 
Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, No. 95 Civ. 10729, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 18, 1997). 
Similarly, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory assertions. See 175fi, Illc. v. United States 
-' In 2010, the Kazarian court reiterated that the AAO's conclusion that "letters from physics professors attesting to lthe alien's] 
contributions in the field" were insufficient was "consistent with the relevant regulatory language." 596 f.od at 1122. 
Page ]() 
At! Y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, (D.C. Dis!. 1990). The petitioner also failed to submit sufficient 
corroborating evidence in existence prior to the preparation of the petition, which could have bolstered 
the weight of the reference letters. 
Accordingly, the AAO concludes that the petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence showing that 
she has made original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major 
significance in the field. The petitioner has not met this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
Evidence of the alien 's authorship of scholarly articles ill the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
The evidence in the record shows that the petitioner has authored four articles and a chapter in a 
handbook: 
(1) 
(2) 
(3) 
(4) 
(5) 
Based on the evidence in the record, the AAO concurs with the director's June 14,2011 tinding that 
the petitioner has shown evidence of her authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. The petitioner has met this criterion. 8 C.F.R. 
~ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
B. Final Merits Determination 
Based on the evidence in the record, the AAO concludes that the petitioner has not submitted the 
requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary categories. Although the petitioner meets the 
authorship of scholarly articles criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), she meets no other criteria. 
Notwithstanding this finding, in accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the AAO will conduct 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 [she] is one of [a] small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor," and (2) that she "has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that [] her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." Section 
203(b)(1)(A) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. For the 
reasons discussed below, the AAO concludes that the petitioner has not made such a showing. 
Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed. 
Page 11 
With regard to the prizes or awards for excellence criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), as 
discussed above, the AAO concludes that the petitioner has abandoned this issue, because she fails to 
timely raise it on appeal. See Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1228 n.2; Hristov, 2011 WL 4711885 at *9. 
Moreover, the AAO finds that the petitioner's evidence in support of this criterion does not 
demonstrate that she is one of a small percentage who have risen to the very top in the field of 
molecular and cellular neurobiology, or that she has sustained national or international acclaim. See 
section 203(b)(I)(A) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 
The petitioner stated in her April 13, 2011 brief filed in support of the petition that she had received the 
ACS Travel Award in July 2007 travel grant for her to attend the 7th lBRO World Congress of 
Neuroscience. According recipients of the award "were selected through 
an international excellent researchers from dozens of countries, five 
continents applied for the award." Although Professor _stated in his March 23, 2011 letter 
that the petitioner was one of four people who received the travel grant, neither the letter nor other 
evidence in the record indicates the total number of people who applied for the travel grant. 
Furthermore, although stated that the travel grant recipients were "evaluated and 
judged based on the the significance of the findings, and the overall merit of 
the applicants," neither the letter nor other evidence in the record establishes that the travel grant 
constitutes a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the field of 
molecular and cellular neurobiology or is otherwise indicative of or consistent with sustained national 
or international acclaim. Notably, the petitioner listed the award as a "scholastic" honor on her 
curriculum vitae. The petitioner failed to provide official material from ACS confirming that travel 
grants are open to all attendees rather than limited to providing financial support to students: 
With regard to the published material about the alien criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), as 
discussed above, the AAO concludes that the petitioner has not met this criterion. In addition, in the 
online printout from Nina Foundation, the petitioner's name was mentioned once along with six other 
scientists. In the incomplete copy of the 2008 article published in EMBO, the petitioner's name was 
mentioned once, along with a number of scientists, and her research was described in two sentences in 
the multiple-page article. In the NOVA Science Now program description, the petitioner's name was 
not mentioned at all. In the two online articles posted on NewsRx.com, the petitioner's name was 
mentioned three times. The AAO concludes that the evidence is not indicative of the petitioner or her 
research receiving "[gJreat attention ... tram the general public and major media:' as the petitioner 
asserts in her brief filed on appeal. 
With regard to the original contributions of major significance criterion under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v), as discussed above, the AAO concludes that the petitioner has not met this criterion. 
See section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-
4 The ACS website. http://www.australasianehronobiology.org/ACS20l2.html, accessed July 6. 2012 and incorporated into 
the record of proceeding, states with regard to the 2008 annual conference, the earliest onc on the wehsite, that ACS has 
funds to provide "modest support for students to travel to Melbourne." The website does not mention any other types of 
travel awards. 
Page 12 
20. In addition, 
reported in 
led by Prolfess,or 
30, 2011 letter indicates that the petitioner's research 
"UJllUIJU~U in Professor _laboratory, by a team of scientists 
in which the petitioner was one of an unspecified number of lead researchers. 
that the petitioner's role in was not as si~ 
Specifically, the letter states that team an~ 
the popular PBS television series NOVA aired on July 20. 2007." 
Second, although the petitioner claims that her articles have been cited 100 times since 20()6, this 
information does not establish national or international acclaim as the petitioner has not provided 
sufficient evidence showing that if a scientist's four articles published from 2006 to 2008 and a chapter 
in a handbook published in 2009 are cited 100 times, then the scientist has achieved national or 
international acclaim. In other words, the AAO does not have any information on either the 
publication or the citation frequency of a top, let alone a very top, molecular and cellular neurobiology 
researcher. As such, the AAO lacks relevant evidence against which to compare the petitioner's four 
articles, a book chapter or 100 citations:' Third, although the petitioner claims that she has participated 
in two international conferences - 2007 Neurobiology of Drosophila International Conference and the 
7th !BRO World Congress of Neuroscience, the evidence fails to indicate that she has attended another 
international conference since 2007, or within approximately four years before she filed the petition in 
April 2011. Moreover, the record lacks evidence on the total number of international conferences in 
the field of molecular and cellular neurobiology in 2007 or in subsequent years, or other relevant 
evidence to support a finding that the petitioner's attendance to two international conferences in 2007 
is indicative of sustained national or international acclaim. 
With regard to the authorship of scholarly articles criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), the AAO 
agrees with the director's findings that although the petitioner meets this criterion, the evidence does 
not demonstrate that she is eligible for the employment classification sought. See section 203(b)(l)(A) 
of the Act; 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Under the 
publications in professional journals and books section of her curriculum vitae, the petitioner listed 
four articles and a book chapter. This is far less than the fifteen articles listed under the selected peer-
reviewed publications section curriculum vitae, or the fifteen articles listed under 
the selected publication section curriculum vitae. The petitioner's four articles 
are also less than the eight selected recent publications section of 
rriculum the five articles listed under the selection of recent puuu,-a, 
,,-"'W,,,, vitae. Similarly, although the petitioner did not 
curriculum vitae, the incomplete copy shows that 
at least eight professional journals. This shows that 
more active journal experience than the petitioner. As such, the petitioner's publication is not 
indicative of or consistent with sustained national or international acclaim or status among the small 
percentage at the top of the field. 
Although the petitioner has provided an online printout entitled "Faculty Scholarly Productivity Index" from The 
Chronicle of Hif{her Education, the data in the printout relates to universities' average citations per faculty and the 
universities' average citations per article, not citation frequency of top scientists or their articles. 
Page 13 
to compare the petitioner with individuals who have 
and are members of the National Academy of Sciences by pointing out that such highly 
ranked people in the field have also been invited to author articles in the Handbook of Cell Signaling. 
A comparison of the petitioner to individuals with such achievements does not result in a conclusion 
that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of her field. 
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 have risen to the very top of her field of endeavor. 
A review of the evidence in the aggregate, however, does not establish that the pel1tlOner has 
distinguished herself to such an extent that she may be said to have achieved sustained national or 
international acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the very top of her field of molecular and 
cellular neurobiology. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set her 
significantly above almost all others in her field at a national or international level. Therefore, the 
petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act and the petition 
may not be approved. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely 
with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act; 8 U.S.c. § 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.