dismissed EB-1A Case: Molecular Biology

idemti- daEade1dte 
prevent clearly unwmted 
invmion ofpersonal privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
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 1 153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
/!/iil ~T'Dx dat kry? [,IL 
i' %~obert P. Wiemam. Chief 
9 Administrative ~ppials Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in the sciences, pursuant to 
section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1 153(b)(l)(A). The 
director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim 
necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a statement and additional evidence. 
 While we withdraw the 
director's adverse findings regarding the petitioner's contributions and scholarly articles, we uphold the 
director's ultimate finding that the petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility for the classification 
sought. We reach this conclusion both by considering the evidence under each criterion to which it 
relates and in the aggregate. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority Workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are 
aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with Extraordinary Ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, 
business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or 
international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the 
field through extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry to the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) 
have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals seeking 
immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-9 (November 29, 
1991). As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of expertise indicating 
that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor. 8 C .F .R. # 204.5(h)(2). The specific requirements for supporting documents to establish that 
an alien has sustained national or international acclaim and recognition in his or her field of expertise 
are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. 
It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that he has sustained national or 
intemational acclaim at the very top level. 
The petitioner obtained his Ph.D. from the Tokyo University of A 
 gy in 1995. 
He then served as a postdoctoral researcher under the supervision 
 at the Ohio 
State University and then at the University of Texas at Austin. In 2001, he worked several months as a 
~ostdoctoral researcher at the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technolow in 
Japan before returning to 
 laboratory as a research associate in 2002. 
Thus, this petition seeks 
 as an alien with extraordinary ability as a research 
associate, a position that 
 is comparable to a postdoctoral research position.' 
Postdoctoral positions 
 training positions, although we acknowledge the 
petitioner received his Ph.D. ten years ago. While neither the law nor the regulations expressly requires 
a specific job title within the hierarchy of the field, the petitioner's accompIishments must compare 
with the very top level of his field, including the most experienced and renowned members of the field. 
Significantly, in its report, the House of Representatives indicated that in the absence of a one-time 
achievement such as a Nobel Prize, an alien could demonstrate eligibility through a "career of 
acclaimed work in the field." H.R. Rep. No. 101-723,59 (September 19, 1990). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, intemational 
recognized award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, at 
least three of which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualify 
as an alien of extraordinary ability. The petitioner has submitted evidence that relates to the following 
  rite ria.^ 
Published materials about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in the Jield for which classifcation is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author ofthe material, and any necessary translation. 
The director concluded that the evidence submitted to meet this criterion was insufficient as the 
petitioner was not named in the materials other than in the reference section. On appeal, the petitioner 
goes over a 1999 article in Current Biology, explaining how it discusses his work and submits a review 
article that includes a section on his area of research. We will consider all of the evidence of record. 
The petitioner initially submitted articles in 
 York Times and Science (2003) 
discussing the work of the petitioner's supervisor, 
 The articles in Bioworld Today and 
' In a letter dated July 5, 2005, when the petitioner was already working as a research associate, = 
asserted that he has supervised "numerous postdoctoral scientists working on similar projects, 
among whom, [the petitioner] is the only molecular biologist." 
The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
The New York Times specifically discuss 
 2000 article in Science. The petitioner is not 
a coauthor of the 2000 article in Science. Thus, the articles in Bioworld Today and The New Yorker 
cannot be considered "about" either the alien or his own work in the field. 
The 2003 article in Science begins its 
 work with his 2000 article in 
Science. The 2003 article then discusses 
 work since that time, including the 
codification of their rules into a computer program relating to L. lactis, an unpublished work utilizing 
this computer program and the gene-insertion technology "dubbed the Targetron." 
 The article 
ization of the Targetron. The record contains the petitioner's two patents, one 
asserts is "one of the key patents underlying the commercial development of 
group I1 introns." The record lacks evidence, however, that the petitioner is a credited inventor of the 
Targetron. None of the petitioner's references claim that he worked on any of the projects discussed in 
the 2003 article in Science. Regardless, the 2003 article does not mention the petitioner by name. In 
light of the above, the 2003 article cannot be considered to be "about" the petitioner or his work. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted a 1 999 article by 
'n Current Biolo 
 The article predates the filing of the petition and, thus, may 
be considered. In the article, 
 discusses "two recent papers" reporting "a series of 
ex eriments aimed at characterizing the mobility mechanism of a bacterial group I1 intron." 
1, discusses the history of this area of research and then states that the "advantages of this 
been successfully exploited by a collaborative effort of the - 
aboratories." Even though the petitioner is the first author of one of the two 
is discussing, 
 does not mention the petitioner by name in the body 
of the Current Biology article. 
The language of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iii) is unambiguous; it requires that the 
published material be "about the alien . . . relating to his work" CJ 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(3)(i)(C) 
(requiring petitions under the outstanding researcher classification, section 203@)(1)(B) of the Act, be 
supported only by published material "about the alien's work.") While the article by -~ 
relates to the petitioner's work, it cannot be considered to be "about" him, as it does not even mention 
him by name. We note that the regulatory criteria are designed to demonstrate national or international 
acclaim. An article that does not mention the petitioner by name cannot gamer him any national or 
international acclaim. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a review article published in Trends in Biotechnology. The article 
was published in the same month as the petition was filed and was available on the Internet two months 
earlier. Thus, we will consider this evidence. Once again, the petitioner is not named in the article. 
Rather, his work is one of 61 articles cited. Even within the section discussing his work, his article is 
one of six articles cited. We cannot conclude that this article is primarily about the petitioner, relating 
to his work. 
Page 5 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. That said, the 
articles in Current Biology and Trends in Biotechnology will be considered below as they relate to the 
significance of the petitioner's scholarly articles. 
Evidence of the alien S original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
The director acknowledged the petitioner's two patents and a letter from discussing the 
importance of the petitioner's innovations and concluded that while the petitioner's work prior to 2000 
could serve to meet this criterion, the record lacked evidence of more recent evidence to meet this 
criterion. On appeal, the petitioner notes that he has published additional articles since 2000. As will 
be discussed in more detail below, the petitioner's older articles appear, from the citation evidence, to 
be the most influential. That said, the petitioner continues to produce publishable work at the same 
level, including two articles in 2001, one in 2004 and another manuscript accepted for publication as of 
the date of filing. Both of the petitioner's 2001 articles had been moderately cited as of the date of 
filing and the petitioner's 2004 article had been minimally cited. Thus, we are persuaded that the 
petitioner sufficiently meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien S authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
On his cumculum vitae, the petitioner listed nine articles. The record contains seven articles that had 
been published as of the date of filing. The petitioner also submitted Web Science search results 
revealing an eighth article published prior to the date of filing. Finally, the petitioner submitted an 
article published after that date. The petitioner must establish eligibility as of the date of filing. See 8 
C.F.R. 5 103.2@)(12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45'49 (Reg. Comm. 1971). Thus, we cannot 
consider the article published after that date. The director concluded that the petitioner could not meet 
this criterion because he had only published two articles in the last five years. On appeal, the petitioner 
notes that he had two articles published in 2001 and one in 2004. The petitioner further notes that he 
has had two articles published since the petition was filed. 
As discussed above, the petitioner worked for 
 from 1995 through 2001. In 2001, he 
spent time working at the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology in Japan 
before returning to the United States to rejoin While we cannot consider the 
petitioner's articles that post date the filing of the petition as evidence of his eligibility as of the date of 
filing, they refute any implication that the petitioner was no longer performing research for publication 
when the petition was filed, especially as one of those articles had been accepted for publication as of 
the date of filing. 
Most significantly, the petitioner submitted evidence that several of his articles had been frequently and 
widely cited as of the date of filing. Most notably, one of the petitioner's articles had been cited 81 
times as of that date. As discussed above, the articles in Current Biology and Trends in Biotechnology, 
while not about the petitioner relating to his work, appear to go beyond the typical citation and discuss 
the petitioner's 1997 article at length. 
In light of the above, we are satisfied that the petitioner meets this criterion. Thus, the petitioner has 
established that he meets two criteria, of which an alien must meet at least three. As discussed above, 
the petitioner falls far short of meeting the third criterion claimed. 
Morever, the conclusion we reach by considering the evidence to meet each criterion separately is 
consistent with a review of the evidence in the aggregate. Even in the aggregate, the evidence does not 
distinguish the petitioner as one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor. The petitioner, a research associate, relies on his two patents, eight publications, high 
citation record, some recognition of his work (in the context of his supervisor's laboratory) in trade 
journals and the praise of his immediate circle of peers. While this may distinguish him fiom other 
postdoctoral researchers 
 ciates, we will not narrow his field to others with his level of 
training and experience. 
 s a member of the National Academy of Sciences and serves 
on the editorial boards of four journals. He has authored 171 articles and two books. He is the head of 
a laboratory on which The New York Times has reported. - one of the petitioner's 
coauthors and a senior scientific officer at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, is a fellow of the 
American Academy of Microbiology, serves on a journal's 
mmm 
is Chair of a an 
American Society for Microbiology division. Another coauthor, 
 is the Director of 
the Division of Genetic Disorders at the Wadsworth Center and has served on the editorial boards of 
several journals. Thus, it appears that the highest level of the petitioner's field is far above the level he 
has attained. 
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. 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself as a 
scientific researcher to such an extent that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or 
international acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence 
indicates that the petitioner shows talent and tremendous potential as a research associate, but is not 
persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field. 
Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and 
the petition may not be approved. 
The 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.