dismissed EB-1A Case: Molecular Biology

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacj 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Ofice of Administrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
PUBLIC COPY 
FILE: - Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: FEB 2 2010 
LIN 08 083 50620 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act; 8 U.S.C. 9 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 9 103.5(a)(I)(i). 
Fhief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska 
Service Center, on March 23, 2009, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office 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. 5 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien 
of extraordinary ability in the sciences. The director determined that the petitioner did not demonstrate 
the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. More specifically, the director found that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate 
the receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
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 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 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 
60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of 
expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top 
of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). The specific requirements for supporting 
documents to establish that an alien has sustained national or international acclaim and recognition 
in his or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The relevant 
criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that 
he has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on January 18,2008, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary 
ability as a molecular biologist. 
Page 3 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally 
recognized award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, 
at least three of which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to 
qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. A petitioner, however, cannot establish eligibility for this 
classification merely by submitting evidence that simply relates to at least three criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3). In determining whether the petitioner meets a specific criterion, the evidence itself 
must be evaluated in terms of whether it is indicative of or consistent with sustained national or 
international acclaim. A lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory 
definition of "extraordinary ability" as "a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of 
that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. 
ij 204.5(h)(2). The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria under 8 
C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) '. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in theJield of endeavor. 
The petitioner claims eligibility for this criterion based on his "Award for Best Poster Presentation - 
Postdoctoral" for his presentation, Computational cis-regulatory Transcriptional Grammar and 
Developing Predictive Mathematical Models, at the Midwest Quantitative Biology Conference 
(MQBC) at Mackinaw Island, Michigan from September 29,2006 to October 1, 2006. In addition to 
submitting a copy of his award, the petitioner also submitted background information from MQBC's 
website which stated: 
In the past four years, the Department of Mathematics and the Quantitative Biology and 
Modeling Initiative (QBMI) at Michigan State University [MSU] have identified 
mathematical biology as a research area of focus. Our mathematical biology program 
emphasizes collaborations between the mathematical scientists and appropriate 
biological scientists. We feel strongly that the time has come to reach out beyond MSU 
by sponsoring a meeting to bring together researchers from mathematics and biological 
science to exchange ideas and to foster collaborations. 
The petitioner also submitted a letter, dated November 15, 2006, from - 
and Professor from stating that "[tlwenty-nine posters were presented during the conference." 
According to tpe participant's list from MQBC, there were a total of 81 participants with 48 of them 
coming from MSU. In addition, 77 of the 81 participants were from universities and other 
educational institutions. 
The plain language of the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(i) specifically requires that 
the petitioner's award be nationally or internationally recognized in the field of endeavor and it is his 
burden to establish every element of this criterion. In this case, while the petitioner submitted 
information regarding MQBC, the petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence regarding 
' The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
Page 4 
the poster award itself such as the nature and stature of this award to demonstrate its recognition 
beyond the awarding entity. Furthermore, we note that the award appears to indicate that the 
petitioner won it in a classification reserved for postdoctoral individuals. However, awards that are 
limited to postdoctoral students are not tantamount to nationally or internationally recognized prizes 
or awards for excellence in the petitioner's field of endeavor as the award was not open to all in the 
field but limited in scope to those just beginning in the field. The petitioner failed to establish that 
his best poster award is a nationally or internationally recognized award and not an award that is 
only recognized within MQBC. 
We also note that while the petitioner did not specifically address another award, the record also 
contains an uncertified English translation from the German Academic Exchange Service reflecting 
the petitioner's scholarship award to further academic study and training in Germany. However, 
academic study is not a field of endeavor, but training for a future field of endeavor. As such, 
academic scholarships and student awards cannot be considered prizes or awards in the petitioner's 
field of endeavor. Moreover, competition for scholarships is limited to other students. Experienced 
experts in the field are not seeking scholarships. Thus, they cannot establish that a petitioner is one 
of the very few at the top of his field. 
Furthermore, we cannot conclude that an award won by the petitioner at a student level competition 
"is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." See 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). USCIS has long held that even athletes performing at the major league level 
do not automatically meet the "extraordinary ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 
954 (Assoc. Comrnr. 1994); 56 Fed. Reg. at 60899.~ Likewise, it does not follow that a student 
researcher who has had success in student level competitions should necessarily qualify for an 
extraordinary ability employment-based immigrant visa. To find otherwise would contravene the 
regulatory requirement at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(2) that this visa category be reserved for "that small 
percentage of individuals that have risen to the very top of their field of endeavor." 
In this case, there is no evidence showing that the petitioner's poster award commanded a significant 
level of recognition beyond the context of the event where it was presented. Accordingly, the 
petitioner has not established that the poster competition resulted in his receipt of a nationally or 
internationally recognized prize or award. In addition, the petitioner's receipt of a scholarship award 
* While we acknowledge that a district court's decision is not binding precedent, we note that in Matter of Racine, 1995 
WL 1533 19 at *4 (N.D. 111. Feb. 16, 1995), the court stated: 
[Tlhe plain reading of the statute suggests that the appropriate field of comparison is not a comparison of 
Racine's ability with that of all the hockey players at all levels of play; but rather, Racine's ability as a 
professional hockey player within the NHL. This interpretation is consistent with at least one other court in this 
district, Crimson v. INS, No. 93 C 3354, (N.D. Ill. September 9, 1993), and the definition of the term 8 C.F.R. 
4 204.5(h)(2), and the discussion set forth in the preamble at 56 Fed. Reg. 60898-99. 
Although the present case arose within the jurisdiction of another federal judicial district and circuit, the court's 
reasoning indicates that USCIS' interpretation of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 4 204.5(h)(2) is reasonable. 
Page 5 
offers no meaningful comparison between him and experienced professionals in the field who have 
long since completed their educational training. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classiJication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, a petitioner must 
show that the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for admission to 
membership. Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a given field, minimum 
education or experience, standardized test scores, grade point average, recommendations by 
colleagues or current members, or payment of dues do not satisfy this criterion as such requirements 
do not constitute outstanding achievements. Further, the overall prestige of a given association is 
not determinative; the issue here is membership requirements rather than the association's overall 
reputation. 
The vetitioner claims eligibilitv for this criterion based on his membership with the American " 
society for Microbiology (ASM). The petitioner submitted a letter, dated ~uly'l7,2007, from- 
who stated that "[the petitioner] has been a member is good 
standing since 2007." The petitioner also submitted ASM's Constitution and Bylaws which reflects 
four classifications for membership: full member, emeritus member, student member, and honorary 
member. We highlight the qualifications for full membership and honorary membership below: 
1. Full Member - A person who endorses the objectives of the Society and who 
holds a bachelor's degree in microbiology or a related field, or who has had 
essentially equivalent experience, shall be eligible to become a Full Member. A 
person who has been nominated in writing in due form by a Full Member, who 
has paid dues for the first year of membership, and who has been endorsed by 
the chair of the Membership Board shall become a Full Member. Each Full 
Member in good standing shall be entitled to the privileges so listed in the 
Constitution and may subscribe to publications as specified by the Council. 
2. Honorary Member - A person who has made outstanding contributions to 
microbiology shall be eligible for nomination and election as an Honorary 
Member. Honorary status is the highest membership recognition given by the 
Society. A person may be proposed in writing to the Secretary together with the 
following information: 
(i) A complete curriculum vitae with a condensed summary; 
(ii) A bibliography of scientific publications; 
(iii) A statement summarizing the nominee's major contributions to 
microbiology together with information attesting to the high personal 
and professional standards of conduct of the candidate. 
Page 6 
Nominations can be made by any ASM member. The Council of Past 
Presidents shall review the qualifications of each nominee and transmit to the 
Secretary the names of up to eight nominees who have made outstanding 
contributions to microbiology. Candidates who are recommended by the 
Council of Past Presidents and who receive approval by a two-thirds vote of the 
Council Policy Committee and Council members under the procedures set forth 
in the Bylaws shall be declared nominated, and their names shall be placed on 
the annual ballot. A nominee receiving approval of the members on the annual 
ballot shall be declared an Honorary Member. 
The petitioner failed to establish the type or classification of membership he has with ASM. The 
letter from Ms. only confirms that his membership is in good standing and not his membership 
status. Nevertheless, the record fails to reflect that full membership requires outstanding 
achievement as an essential condition to membership with ASM. As evidenced above, full 
membership requires at least a bachelor's degree in microbiology or related field or related 
experience, nomination by a full member, endorsement by the chair of the membership board, and 
payment of dues for the first year. As such, these requirements fail to reflect outstanding 
achievement in the petitioner's field of microbiology. 
Regarding honorary membership, the record reflects that outstanding achievement is an essential 
condition for this membership status. For example, the individual's curriculum vitae, publication 
history, and major contributions to microbiology are major factors for consideration for honorary 
membership. However, while honorary membership requires recommendation of past presidents of 
the committee and two-thirds vote of the policy committee, the record reflects that all members of 
ASM vote for the honorary member on the annual ballot. Thus, we are not persuaded that honorary 
membership with ASM meets the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(ii) which requires 
membership to be "judged by recognized national or international experts." Regardless, the 
petitioner failed to establish his specific membership status with ASM. 
The petitioner also claims eligibility for this criterion based on his membership with the Society for 
Developmental Biology (SDB). The petitioner submitted a letter, dated July 17, 2007, from 
Ph.D., Executive Officer, stating that the petitioner is a "current postdoctoral member" with 
SDB. The petitioner also submitted background information from SDB's website. The petitioner 
failed to submit any documentary evidence reflecting membership requirements with SDB. 
According to SDB's membership application,3 obtained from the link noted on the petitioner's SDB 
certificate, the applicant chooses the type of membership: full member, postdoctoral, and student, 
and then submits the appropriate fee. Other than submitting the membership application and paying 
the appropriate fee, the petitioner failed to establish that outstanding achievement is a prerequisite 
for membership with SDB. Further, the petitioner failed to establish that membership with SDB is 
judge by recognized national or international experts. 
3 See https:/11nercur\ faseb.org/nienlbe~ ship sdb/Nz~ bfelnber Default.aspx, accessed on February 2,20 10, and 
incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
Page 7 
Moreover, we note that in response to the director's request for evidence pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
5 103.2(b)(8), the petitioner submitted a certificate from Sigma Xi indicating that the petitioner was 
granted full membership on November 6, 2008. However, the petition was filed on January 18, 
2008. As this membership occurred after the filing of the petition, we cannot consider this evidence in 
this proceeding. Therefore, we will not consider this item as evidence to establish the petitioner's 
eligibility. Eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter 
of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Regl. Cornmr. 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. 
1 14 (BIA 1981), that we cannot "consider facts that come into being only subsequent to the filing of 
a petition." Id. at 176. Regardless, the materials submitted by the petitioner about Sigma Xi reveal 
that Sigma Xi invites to full membership "those who have demonstrated noteworthy achievements in 
research." These achievements must be evidenced by "publications, patents, written reports or a thesis 
or dissertation, which must be available to the Committee on Admission if requested." We do not find 
that mere experience, maturity, undefined significant professional achievements or publication of two 
first-authored articles, one of which could be a dissertation or thesis, are outstanding achievements. 
For the reasons set forth above, the petitioner failed to establish his specific membership status with 
ASM and failed to establish that membership with ASM or SDB requires outstanding achievement 
as an essential condition for membership as judged by national or international experts. As such, the 
petitioner failed to establish that his memberships meet the regulatory criterion under 8 C.F.R. 
204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien S participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the 
work of others in the same or an alliedjeld of specialization for which classzj?cation is 
sought. 
At the time of original filing of the petition, the petitioner claimed eligibility for this criterion based 
on his review of manuscripts for the Journal of Plant Diseases and Protection (JPDP). The petitioner 
submitted a letter from Dr. , Editor-in-Chief from 1997 to 2005, JPDP, who 
stated: 
From 1999-2002, [the petitioner] reviewed several manuscripts submitted to the 
Journal. [The petitioner] was asked to review manuscripts, because of his scientific 
knowledge in the field of biological control. 
However, Dr. not only failed to indicate the specific names of the manuscripts the 
petitioner reviewed but even how many were reviewed. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 4 204.5(h)(3) 
provides that "a petition for an alien of extraordinary ability must be accompanied by evidence that 
the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been 
recognized in the field of expertise." The evidence submitted to meet this criterion, or any criterion, 
Page 8 
must be indicative of or consistent with sustained national or international a~claim.~ A lower 
evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory definition of "extraordinary ability" 
as "a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen 
to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). We do not find that a single letter 
that generally indicates that the petitioner has "reviewed several manuscripts" is sufficient to 
establish eligibility for this criterion. Furthermore, while the Dr. states that JPDP "is a 
well known journal in the field of agricultural science and plant diseases in Germany and Europe," 
the petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence supporting Dr. Buchenauer's statement. 
In addition, in response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner claimed 
eligibility for this criterion based on his review of a manuscript for the Journal of Agricultural and 
Food Chemistry (JAFC). The petitioner submitted an email, dated June 1,2006, from the petitioner 
in response to Professor Elizabeth Waters, Associate Editor, (JAFC), stating that he would review 
the manuscript based on her request. However, the petitioner failed to submit any documentary 
evidence confirming that he actually reviewed the manuscript. The plain language of this regulatory 
criterion specifically requires "[elvidence of the alien's participation . . . as a judge of the work of 
others." An invitation or acceptance to perform a manuscript review is not tantamount to evidence of 
one's participation as a judge of others' work. 
Finallv. in response to the director's reauest for evidence. the petitioner submitted a letter, dated January 
29,2609, from niversity, who th&ed the petitioner "for being an esteemed 
reviewer for Tissue Engineering." However, Mr. failed to indicate the number of manuscripts, 
dates reviewed, and specific names of manuscripts. We note that the petitioner failed to claim his 
eligibility as a reviewer of manucripts for Tissue Engineering at the time of filing of the original 
petition. As the record fails to reflect when the petitioner reviewed the manuscripts, we are unable to 
determine if his review occurred after the filing of the petition, and therefore, can be considered as 
evidence. Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
Notwithstanding, we note here that peer review is a routine element of the process by which articles 
are selected for publication in scientific journals. Occasional participation (in this case, the 
petitioner being requested to review three manuscripts) in the peer review process does not 
automatically demonstrate that an individual has sustained national or international acclaim at the 
very top of his field. Reviewing manuscripts is recognized as a professional obligation of researchers 
who publish themselves in scientific journals. Normally a journal's editorial staff will enlist the 
assistance of numerous professionals in the field who agree to review submitted papers. It is 
common for a publication to ask several reviewers to review a manuscript and to offer comments. 
The publication's editorial staff may accept or reject any reviewer's comments in determining 
whether to publish or reject submitted papers. Without evidence pre-dating the filing of the petition 
that sets the petitioner apart from others in his field, such as evidence that he has reviewed an 
unusually large number of articles, received and completed independent requests for review from a 
4 We note that although not binding precedent, this interpretation has been upheld in Yasar v. DHS, 2006 WL 778623 *9 
(S.D. Tex. March 24,2006); All Pro Cleaning Services v. DOL et al., 2005 WL 4045866 *I 1 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 26,2005). 
Page 9 
substantial number of journals, or served in an editorial position for a distinguished journal, we 
cannot conclude that he meets this criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientzjic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major signlJicance in the jield. 
At the time of the original filing of the petition, the petitioner claimed eligibility for this criterion 
based on six recommendation letters. We cite representative examples here: 
In 2005, [the petitioner] agreed to join my lab to lead a new interdisciplinary project 
that involved the development of novel quantitative methods to measure gene 
expression in the Drosophila embryo. This multi-investigator Strategic Partnership 
Grant, which is supported both by the Michigan State University Foundation and an 
NIH grant, has brought us together with colleagues in Mathematics to model the 
activity of defined molecular switches in the fly, to better understand the so-called "cis- 
regulatory transcriptional grammar" that underlies the regulation of genes. [The 
petitioner's] participation has been on three levels. First, he established the technically 
difficult measurements of gene expression data from embryos, using confocal laser 
scanning technology that required him to seek training and become expert in this 
methodology. This work is providing the core of the data set that we are using for our 
modeling efforts. Second, after training himself in methods of molecular biology and 
Drosophila transformation, he has supervised a team of one undergraduate and one 
graduate student to introduce the gene elements into Drosophila. Third, to coordinate 
the disparate aspects of the project, he has organized regular meetings with the 
experimental group and the modeling group, at which time our mathematician colleages 
[sic] and we discuss the technical details that are important for model building, and 
identify critical points in the experimental work that is required for the work to proceed. 
In particular, his work on N-mercapto-4-formylcarbostyril, an antibiotic produced by 
Pseudomonas is extremely important because it represents how natural compounds 
produced by microbes might be beneficial to humans. 
In a very creative series of studies, he used the fungal strain Sclerotinia to identify the 
GHRH receptor, as a specific molecule on the surface of cells that makes them 
susceptible to damage by atrazine. This work shows how model systems can be used to 
identify important molecules that are involved in human disease. 
Page 10 
, Assistant Professor, University of Illinois, stated: 
[The petitioner's] current research is very close to my own area of expertise. He is 
studying one of the most important biological processes, called "transcriptional gene 
regulation," which plays a crucial role in every organism's development and survival. 
[The petitioner] has developed mathematical models for this complex biological 
process, in order for scientists to understand and predict the effects of various 
environmental and genetic conditions on an organism. Such work is of tremendous 
benefit to fundamental science as well as medial science. As a result of his research, 
[the petitioner] is one of the leading scientists in his field. 
Dr. Senior Scientist, European Molecular Biology Laboratory, stated: 
Since 2005, [the petitioner] has been doing a cutting-edge research to understand gene 
regulation during development of Drosophila embryos. Drosophila embryogenesis 
provides a fantastic model system to understand fundamental principles of gene 
regulation applicable to other organisms. This understanding is crucial because defects 
in gene regulation are at the heart of many human diseases. [The petitioner's] approach 
is unique. He is using well-characterized regulatory elements and systematically 
altering their number and spacing, and measuring the gene expression output 
quantitatively. In parallel, he is building a computational model of the gene expression 
output, and modifying the model as experimental data is obtained, in hopes of building 
a powerful tool to predict the gene expression output based on many parameters that 
dictate gene regulation. [The petitioner's] cutting-edge research offers a substantial 
benefit to the prevention of genetic and developmental diseases. 
Dr. Professor, University of Nebraska Medial Center, stated: 
For the past four years, [the petitioner] has been performing cutting-edge research to 
understand the molecular mechanisms that control gene regulation during development 
of a model organism, Drosophila. Drosophila embryogenesis provides an excellent 
system for understanding fundamental principles of gene regulation, which will 
undoubtedly be applicable to other organisms. This understanding is crucial because 
defects in gene regulation are central to many human diseases, especially cancer. [The 
petitioner's] approach is very important. He is using well-characterized regulatory 
elements and systematically altering their number, binding affinity and spacing, and 
measuring the gene expression output quantitatively. In parallel, he is building a 
computational model of the gene expression output, and modifying the model as 
experimental data is obtained, with the exception of building a powerful tool to predict 
the gene expression output based on a wide range parameters that dictate gene 
expression. [The petitioner's] research offers a substantial benefit to the prevention of 
genetic and developmental diseases. 
Page 11 
Dr. Dartmouth College, stated: 
[The petitioner's] work to analyze how the bacteria have this biocontrol effect resulted 
in the isolation and identification of a novel antibiotic compound, a significant 
breakthrough since bacterial resistance to known antibiotics is increasing. 
In the United States, [the petitioner] continued his postdoctoral research on the impact 
of pesticide usage on animals and plants. [The petitioner] discovered that atrazine 
binds to the growth hormone releasing hormone (GHRH) receptor and reduces 
expression of the growth hormone gene in mammalian cells. This work shows how 
model organism can be used to identify important molecules that are involved in human 
disease. 
He is using well-studied regulatory motifs and systematically changing their 
stiochiometry, binding affinity and spacing, and measuring the quantitative gene output. 
In collaboration with other mathematician, [the petitioner] is building a computational 
model of the gene expression output, in hopes of building a robust tool to predict the 
gene expression output during development at spatial and temporal levels. 
In this case, the recommendation letters are not sufficient to meet this regulatory criterion. The 
opinions of experts in the field, while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a 
successful claim of sustained national or international acclaim. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as 
advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. The statutory requirement that an alien 
have "sustained national or international acclaim" necessitates evidence of recognition beyond the 
alien's immediate acquaintances. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
5 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). Further, USCIS may, in its discretion, use as 
advisory opinion statements as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 
791, 795 (Commr. 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final 
determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters of 
support from the petitioner's personal contacts in 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. Thus, the content of the 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 any immigration petition are of less weight than preexisting, independent 
evidence or original contributions of major significance that one would expect of an individual who 
has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field. We note that the letters 
from Dr. and Dr. as cited above, are almost verbatim and provide very little weight 
to establishing the petitioner's original contributions of major significance to microbiology. 
Page 12 
Furthermore, the petitioner failed to submit preexisting, independent evidence of original 
contributions of major significance. While the letters highly praise the petitioner and provide 
examples of his research and work, they fail to establish that he has made original contributions of 
major significance in his field. The reference letters do not reflect that his work is original and has 
revolutionized or influenced the microbiology field at all. 
We note here that the recommendation letters also discuss the petitioner's research in terms of 
possible implications that his work may lead to in the future. However, we will not consider 
evidence reflecting claims of future speculation. In addition, some of the content from the letters of 
Dr. Dr. and Dr. referred to events occurring after the filing of the petition. 
For example, they indicated that the work they discussed in their letters was published in Tissue 
Engineering. However, the petitioner's article, Image Processing and Analysis for Quantifying Gene 
Expression from Early Drosophila Embryos, was published in September 2008, nine months after 
the filing of the petition. Furthermore, they indicated that the petitioner's work was "submitted for 
publication in the prestigious Molecular Systems Biology journal." The record fails to reflect that 
his work was ever published in this journal. Regardless, we cannot consider events occurring after 
the filing of the petition. Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
Letters from independent references who were previously aware of the petitioner through his 
reputation and who have applied his work are far more persuasive than letters from independent 
references who were not previously aware of the petitioner. Ultimately, evidence in existence prior 
to the preparation of the petition carries greater weight than new materials prepared especially for 
submission with the petition. An individual with sustained national or international acclaim should 
be able to produce unsolicited materials reflecting that acclaim. Vague, solicited letters from local 
colleagues or letters that do not specifically identify contributions or how those contributions have 
influenced the field are insufficient. Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009). 
Moreover, in response to the director's request for evidence, counsel submitted evidence claiming 
that the petitioner's "research has resulted in 297 DNA sequence fragments to be stored with NCBI 
mational Center for Biomedical Research]." On appeal, counsel states that he submitted updated 
information and this "clearly shows [the petitioner] has made major, original contributions in the 
field of molecular biology." However, a review of the documentary evidence reflects that the 
evidence that was submitted in response to the director's request for evidence was created on 
February 17,2009, and the evidence that was submitted on appeal was created on April 2,2009. As 
these events occurred after the filing of the petition, we cannot consider this evidence in this 
proceeding. Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. Nevertheless, while the documentation 
submitted by counsel reflects that the petitioner submitted cells and tissues to NCBI, the 
documentation fails to support counsel's claim of the petitioner's discovery of 297 DNA sequence 
fragments. Without documentary evidence to support the claim, the assertions of counsel will not 
satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute 
evidence, Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533,534 n.2 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N 
Dec. 1,3 n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). 
Page 13 
Further, in response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted citation history 
from www.scopus.com. According to the website, the petitioner's article, Isolation and 
IdentiJication of N-Mercapto-4-Formylcarbostyril, an Antibiotic Produced by Pseudomonas 
Fluorescens, was cited in 13 articles. However, the information from the website was based on the 
number of citations as of February 25, 2009. A review of the information reflects that 4 of the 
articles were published after the filing of the petition. Therefore, we will only consider 9 of the 
articles citing the petitioner's work. In addition, the petitioner's article, DetoxiJication of Fusaric 
Acid by a Nonpathogenic Colletotrichum, was cited 2 times. Again, the information from the 
website was based on the number of citations as of February 25, 2009. A review of the information 
reflects that 1 article was published after the filing of the petition. Therefore, we will only consider 
1 article citing the petitioner's work. We are not persuaded that the petitioner's 2 articles, having 
been cited a total of 10 times at the time of filing, is indicative of or consistent with original 
scientific contributions of major significance. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d at 1036 (publications 
and presentations are insufficient absent evidence that they constitute contributions of major 
significance). 
According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not only 
original but of major significance. We must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not 
superfluous and, thus, that it has some meaning. To be considered a contribution of major 
significance in the field of science, it can be expected that the results would have already been 
reproduced and confirmed by other experts and applied in their work. Otherwise, it is difficult to 
gauge the impact of the petitioner's work. In addition, the petitioner's occupation is research-driven, 
and there would be little point in publishing research that did not add to the general pool of 
knowledge in the field. 
Moreover, the regulations contain a separate criterion regarding the authorship of published articles. 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(vi). We 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 statutory requirement for extensive evidence or the regulatory 
requirement that a petitioner meet at least three separate criteria. 
While the petitioner's research is no doubt of value, it can be argued that any research must be 
shown to be original and present some benefit if it is to receive funding and attention from the 
business community. It does not follow that every researcher who performs original research that 
adds to the general pool of knowledge has inherently made a contribution of major significance to 
the field as a whole. 
While the record includes numerous attestations of the potential impact of the petitioner's work and 
a description of his research and findings, none of the petitioner's references provide specific 
examples of how the petitioner's work is already influencing the field beyond the limited projects on 
which he has worked. While the evidence demonstrates that the petitioner is a talented researcher 
with potential, it falls short of establishing that the petitioner had already made contributions of 
major significance. 
Page 14 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien S authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
Counsel claims the petitioner's eligibility for this criterion based on the petitioner's "18 scholarly 
articles published in some of the most prestigious journals in the field." At the time of the initial 
filing of the petition, counsel submitted a list of 18 "scholarly articles." However, a review of the 
list along with the submitted samples reflects that the following 4 articles have never been published 
but rather were only submitted for publication: 
1. Atrazine Binds to GHRH-Receptor and Affects mRNA Level of Growth 
Hormone in Rat Pituitary Cells, submitted for publication in Science; 
2. Cloning and Analysis of Up-Regulated Genes in Atrazine-Treated Apothecium 
of Sclerotinia Sclerotiorum, submitted for publication in Fungal Genetics and 
Biology; 
3. Deciphering a Cis-Regulatory Grammar Using a "Bottom- Up" Approach in the 
Drosophila Embryo, awaiting for an unspecified publication; and 
4. A "Bottoms-Up" Approach to Deciphering Transcriptional Cis-Regulatory 
Grammar in the Drosophila Embryo, awaiting for an unspecified publication. 
The plain language of this regulatory criterion requires the authorship of scholarly articles "in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media." As these articles have never been 
published but only submitted for publication, they do not meet the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Furthermore, while counsel claimed that that the following 2 articles were published, counsel failed 
to submit copies or any other documentary evidence establishing their authorship and publication: 
1. Genetic Effects of the Endocrine Disruptor Atrazine on the Sexual Development 
of the Filamentous fungus Sclerotinia Sclerotiorum; and 
2. Effect of Benzothiazoleon the Colonization of the Phyllosphere, Rhizosphere 
and Endospure of Tomato by Fluorescent Pseudomonads Containing the GFP 
Marker Gene. 
Without documentary evidence to support the claim, the assertions of counsel will not satisfl the 
petitioner's burden of proof. The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. 
Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. at 534 n.2; Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. at 3 n.2; Matter of 
Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. at 506. The petitioner failed to establish the authorship and 
publication of these articles. 
Page 15 
The petitioner submitted the following articles establishing that they were authored by him and 
published or presented at conferences: 
Application of Fluorescent Pseudomonads in Combination with Acibenzolar-S- 
Methyl Induces Synergistic Disease Resistance in Tomato and Tobacco, (JPDP), 
2004; 
Detoxijication of Fusaric Acid by a Nonpathogenic Colletotrichum Sp., 
Physiology and Molecular Plant Pathology (PMPP), 2004; 
Characteristics of Fluorescent Pseudomonad Isolates Towards Controlling of 
Tomato Wilt Disease Caused by Fusarium Oxysporum F. Sp. Lycopersici, 
JPDP, 2002; 
Enhancement of Population Densities of Fluorescent Pseudomonads in the 
Rhizosphere of Tomato Plants by Addition of Acibenzloar-S-Methyl, Canadian 
Journal of Microbiology (CJM), 2003; 
Isolation and IdentiJication of N-Mercapto-4-Formylcarbostyril, an Antibiotic 
Produced by Pseudomonas Fluorescens, Phytochemistry, 200 1 ; 
Ultrastructural Studies on the Mode of Actions of Fluorescent Pseudomonads 
Alone and in Combination with Acibenzolar-S-Methyl Effective Against 
Fusarium Oxysporum F. Sp. Lycopersici in Tomato Plants, JPDP, 200 1 ; 
Histological Studies in Stem and Root Cross Sections of Tomato Seedlings 
ArtlJicially Inoculated with Agrobacterium Tumefaciens, Advanced Horticulture 
Science (AHS), 1996; 
Interaction Between Meloidogyne Javanica and Agrobacterium Tumefaciens on 
Tomato Plants, Pakistan Journal of Nematology (PJN), 1996; 
Biocontrol of Crown Gall Disease in Jordan, Agricultural Sciences (AS), 1996; 
Computational Analysis of Transcriptional Cis-Regulatory Grammar and 
Developing Predictive Mathematical Model in Drosophila at MQBC; 
Effect of Atrazine on the Sexual Development of Apothecia of the Filamentous 
Fungus Sclerotinia Sclerotiorum at llth ~nnual Midwest Microbial 
Pathogenesis Conference; and 
Establishment in Tomato Plants and Mechanisms of Action of Fluorescent 
Pseudomonads Antagonistic to the Fusarium Wilt Pathogen at IOBCIWPRS. 
We note here that in response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted another 
article, Image Processing and Analysis for Quantifiing Gene Expression from Early Drosophila 
Embryos, published in September 2008, in Tissue Engineering Part A. However, as the article was 
published after the filing of the petition, we cannot consider this evidence in this proceeding. 
Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N ~ec: at 49. 
Notwithstanding, a review of these articles reflects that the petitioner co-authored them while he was 
a postdoctoral research associate, postdoctoral fellowship, Ph.D. student, and graduate student at 
universities and institutions. According to the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook 
- 
Page 16 
 andb book^ (OOH), a solid record of published research is essential in obtaining a permanent position in 
basic biological research. As publishing research is inherent in the requirements of doctoral and 
postdoctoral research, and a researcher must demonstrate published research prior to even obtaining 
a permanent job in the petitioner's field, published research alone cannot serve to set the petitioner 
apart from others in his field. 
While we acknowledge that we must avoid requiring acclaim within a given criterion, it is not a circular 
approach to require some evidence of the community's reaction to the petitioner's published articles in a 
field where publication is expected of those merely completing training in the field. Kazarian v. USCIS, 
580 F.3d at 1036. 
Regarding the previously mentioned 10 articles citations to the petitioner's work, this minimal number 
of citations is not evidence that the petitioner's work is widely cited. Thus, while these publications 
may attest to the originality of the petitioner's work, the record lacks evidence that his work has 
attracted a wide level of interest in his field commensurate with sustained national or international 
acclaim. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner claims eligibility for this criterion based on his postdoctoral research associate position at 
MSU. The petitioner submitted the previously mentioned letter from who stated: 
In addition to his focused efforts in the laboratory, [the petitioner] has been active in the 
MSU Postdoctoral association as Secretary, and has served as the campus representative at 
national meetings. [The petitioner's] scientific accomplishments have already established 
him as a scientist of considerable talent, and his senior responsibilities as team leader in 
my laboratory have demonstrated his ability in a leadership position. 
The petitioner also submitted documentation from the National Postdoctoral Association's (NPA) 
website indicating that the petitioner is a participant and documentation from MSU's website indicating 
that the petitioner is the secretary for the steering committee of MSU's Postdoctoral Association 
(MSUPA). 
At issue for this criterion are the position the petitioner was selected to fill and the reputation of the 
entity that selected him. In other words, the position must be of such significance that the alien's 
selection to fill the position, in and of itself, is indicative of or consistent with national or international 
acclaim. While the petitioner submitted documentation from Newsweek on w w~v.msnbc.com reflecting 
that MSU was ranked the 62nd top global university and information from w\+w.about.com reflecting 
5 See htt~~://www.hls.::ov~oco~ocos047.ht~trainig, accessed on February 2,20 10, and incorporated into the record of 
proceeding. 
Page 17 
that MSU had one of the top biology programs, the petitioner failed to establish that his position as a 
postdoctoral research associate, in performing daily routine duties of overseeing graduate students, is 
commensurate with the acclaim required by this highly restrictive classification, or how it differentiates 
him from other postdoctoral researchers and Dr. - 
Furthermore, besides documentation reflecting that the petitioner is a participant and secretary, the 
petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence establishing that the petitioner has performed in a 
leading or critical role for NPA or MSUPA. Without additional documentation, we cannot conclude 
that the mere act of simply participating in an organization or serving as a secretary is sufficient to 
demonstrate the petitioner's leading or critical role. Notwithstanding, the petitioner failed to submit any 
documentary evidence establishing that NPA or MSUPA has a distinguished reputation. 
In addition, the petitioner claims eligibility and submitted documentation for this criterion based on his 
participation and presentations at the following conferences: 
2007 Midwest Drosophila Conference from October 5-6,2007; 
Systems Biology: Global Regulation of Gene Expression from March 29-April 1, 
2007; 
48' Annual Drosophila Research Conference from March 7- 1 1,2007; 
MQBC from September 29-October 1,2006; 
Joint Meeting of the 3 Divisions of the International Union of Microbiological 
Societies of 2005 from July 23-28,2005; 
6th IOBCIWPRS-EFPP Biocontrol Workshop from November 30-December 3, 
2004; 
11' Annual Midwest Microbial Pathogenesis Conference from October 1-3,2004; 
52nd German Plant Protection Conference from October 9-12,2000. 
9th IOBCIWPRS-EFPP Biocontrol Workshop from November 30-December 4, 
2000; 
14~~ International Plant Protection Congress from July 25-30, 1999; and 
5 1 st German Plant Protection Conference from October 5-8, 1998. 
While the petitioner has established that he made presentations at all of the conferences, the 
petitioner failed to establish that he performed in a leading or critical role at these conferences. As 
part of conferences in the scientific field, it is inherent for researchers and scientists to present their 
findings and research at conferences. We are not persuaded that where an individual makes a 
presentation, among several other presentations, such a fact is tantamount to meeting the eligibility 
requirements for this regulatory criterion. For example, regarding item 1, the record reflects that 
there were at least 14 other presenters at the conference. In addition, regarding item 4, the record 
reflects that there were 28 other presenters at this conference. The petitioner failed to submit 
evidence demonstrating how the petitioner's roles differentiated him from the other presenters. In this 
case, the documentation submitted by the petitioner does not establish that he was responsible for the 
success or standing of the conferences to which he presented to a degree consistent with the meaning of 
"leading or critical role" and indicative of sustained national or international acclaim. Further, the 
Page 18 
petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence demonstrating that any of the conferences have a 
distinguished reputation. 
We note here that at the time of the original filing of the petition, the petitioner submitted a copy of an 
email, dated December 20, 2007, from- Professor, Institute for  ath he ma tics and its 
Applications (IMA), requesting the petitioner to participate at the IMA Organization of Biological 
Networks fiom March 3-7, 2008. However, as the conference occurred after the filing of the petition, 
we cannot consider this evidence in this proceeding. Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Finally, 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. While the petitioner's accomplishments may distinguish him fiom other postdoctoral 
research associates, we will not narrow his field to others with his level of training and experience. For 
exam le, Dr. claimed to have reviewed manuscripts for 17 different journals. In addition, Dr. 
d claimed to have reviewed manuscripts for 22 different journals and published 129 scholarly 
articles. When compared to the accomplishments of these individuals, it appears that the highest level 
of the petitioner's field is far above the level he has attained. 
We note that on appeal, counsel claims that the director erred in his citation of Matter of Chawathe, 
USCIS Adopted Decision, January 11, 2006. A review of the director's decision reflects that in 
applying Matter of Chawathe, he stated that "the Service reaffirmed that 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3) requires 
'specific objective evidence be submitted to demonstrate eligibility as an alien of extraordinary 
ability."' We agree with counsel that Matter of Chawathe never specifically mentioned aliens of 
extraordinary ability, and the decision was based on eligiblity under section 3 16(b) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
fj 1427(b), relating to preservation of residence for naturalization proceedings. However, while the 
director cited language that does not exist in Matter of Chawathe, the decision's principle that an 
applicant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she is eligible for the benefit sought 
applies in this case. 
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 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 as a molecular biologist, 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. 
- 
Page 19 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will 
be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.