dismissed EB-1A Case: Molecular Carcinogenesis

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: 2 1 m5 
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. $ 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. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
' Administrative Appeals Office 
rage L 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont Service 
Center, 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 determ'ined that the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international 
acclaim requisite to classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in.pertinent part: 
(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 ~xtraordinary 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. 
Specific supporting evidence must accompany the petition to document the "sustained national or international 
acclaim" that the statute requires. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). An alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through ividence of a "one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized 
award)." Id. Absent such an award, an alien can establish the necessary sustained acclaim by meeting at least 
three of ten other regulatory criteria. Id. However, the weight given to evidence submitted to fulfill the criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. 3 204.5(h)(3), or under 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(4), must depend on the extent to which such evidence 
demonstrates, reflects, or is consistent with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the 
alien's field of endeavor. 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). 
In this case, the petitioner seeks classi$cation as an alien with extraordinary ability in the sciences, specifically 
the research of molecular carcinogenesis. At the time of filing, the petitioner was employed as a research fellow 
at the Laboratory of Human Carcinogenesis (LHC) within the National Cancer Institute (NCI) of the National 
Institutes of Health (NIH). The petitioner initially submitted supporting documents including his academic 
credentials and scholarship, awards, membership in two scientific associations, past research grant, patent 
application, peer review of scholarly manuscripts, verification of his employment, copies of his articles and 
conference presentations, citations to his work, and ten letters of recommendation from scientists who have 
collaborated or frequently consulted with the petitioner. On appeal, counsel submits a brief and additional 
evidence of the publication and citption of the petitioner's work, his awards, peer review of scientific papers, 
conference participation, a second pkent application, articles discussing one aspect of the petitioner's research, 
documents related to his income and role at LHC, and recommendation letters from seven additional scientists 
who have not worked with the petitioner. We address the evidence submitted and counsel's contentions in the 
following discussion of the regulatory criteria relevant to the petitioner's case. The petitioner does not claim 
eligibility under any criteria not addressed below. 
(9 Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards 
for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
< 
The petitioner claims to meet this criterion by virtue of the following achievements: 1) a research grant from the 
National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC), 2) the selection of one of his papers to be presented at 
the All China Outstanding Scholarly Paper Exchange Conference on Modern Medicine, 3) the Excellent Young 
Scientist Scientific/Technology Paper awZrd from the Sichuan Provincial Science and Technology Committee, 
4) his German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) Scholarship, 5) his NIH research fellowship, 6) Excellent 
Paper in Biomedicine Award granted by the German-Chinese Biomedical Society, and 7) a young investigator 
award to attend the Aspen Canqer Conference. None of these accomplishments reflect the requisite sustained 
acclaim. 
The record shows that while employed at the West China University of Medical Sciences, the petitioner 
received a research grant from the NSFC in the amount.of 180,000 yuan from December 1990 to December 
1993. On appeal, the petitioner submits a irintout from the Foundation's website, which states, "NSFC has 
established a series of systems to encourage fountainhead innovation and to fund excellent and creative 
researchers through fair competition on the basis of -scientific and democratic principles." Shengwei Li, 
Professor of Stomatology at the West China University-of Medical Sciences and an evaluation panel member for 
NSFC, attests to the strict evaluation and competitiveness of NSFC grants. Yet such funding is intrinsic to 
success as a research scientist and activities or accomplishments that nominally fall under a given regulatory 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) do not demornstrate national or international acclaim if they are inherent or 
routine in the occupation itself. Moreover, scientific grants are awarded for proposed research, not recognized 
discoveries (except in so much as past findings may support future research in the same area). Thus, while 
highly competitive and prestigious grants may reflect a scientist's professional stature and the value of his or her 
research to the field, they do not constitite prizes or awards for scientific excellence. In addition, the 
petitioner's NSFC grant was awarded 12 years prior to the filing of this petition and does not demonstrate 
sustained acclaim. 
The petitioner submitted copies of two certificates dated in 1992 showing that one of his papers was selected for 
presentation at thi~ll China Outstanding Scholarly Paper Exchange Conference on Modern Medicine and that 
he received the Sichuan Province Youth Outstanding Scientific Paper award at the China Science Youth 
Leadership Annual Sichuan Health Conference. The record contains no evidence regarding the selection criteria 
or significance of the former citation and no evidence that the latter award was recognized beyond Sichuan 
province in China. Moreover, both honors were presented over a decade before this petition was filed and do 
not demonstrate the requisite sustained acclaim. 
The petitioner's scholarship and fellowship also do not meet this criterion. On appeal, the petitioner submits a 
letter from Guosheng Hang, Professor of German at Tongji University in China and a member of the DAAD 
Pre-Selection Committee, who explains the strict examination and multi-level selection process for DAAD 
scholarships. Professor states that in 1994, the petitioner was one of only three biosciences students 
selected from more than 1,0,00 candidates in China to receive a DAAD scholarship. The record shows that the 
petitioner's DAAD scholarship was awarded to support his doctoral studies at the University of Heidelberg. The 
petitioner's scholarship atteststo his outstanding academic achievement in China, but it is not equivalent to a 
prize or award under this criterion. Scholarships are awarded to support the academic pursuits of students, not 
to support the professional research of established scientists. 
Although awarded to support his work as a professional researcher, the petitioner's MH fellowship is also not 
equivalent to a prize or award under this criterion. Documents submitted on appeal indicate that the eligibility 
requirements for NIH Research Fellowships for foreign scientists include at least three years of postdoctoral 
experience and outstanding scholastic achievement. Yet the stated purpose of these fellowships is "to provide 
junior-level scientists with doctoral degrees experience in biomedical research while they provide a service 
relevant to the NM's program needs." Even if highly selective and competitive, the petitioner's research 
fellowship constitutes employment of limited duration to provide continued postdoctoral research experience 
and is not equivalent to a prize or award under this criterion. 
In 1997, the petitioner's paper ("Knock-In p53 Sequences With and Without Intron 4 to Determine its Function 
in Gene Expression Control") was on&of five manuscripts out of 500 submissions that received an Excellent 
Investigate Paper award at the Second Germany-Chinese Biomedical Conference. A letter submitted on appeal 
from Hanxian An, President of the Germany-Chinese Biomedical Society, explains the "rigorous evaluation 
system" to select the winning manuscripts and states that this award is "considered a high level honor in the 
universities and institutes in biomedicine filed [sic] in the [sic] Germany and China." Even if this award was 
internationally recognized, it was presented to the petitioner over five years before this petition was filed and 
does not demonstrate sustained acclaim. 
Curtis C. Harris, Chief of the LHC, the petitioner's supervisor and a co-founder of the Aspen Cancer 
Conference, explains in a letter submitted on appeal that the petitioner was one of 14 scientists to receive a 
Young Investigator Award at the 2002 Aspen Cancer Conference and that "[tlhis award is nationwidely [sic] for 
the promising young investigators with those well established in their fields. The qualified young scientists are 
recommended by the famous scientists in the field, and review and selection are performed by a committee." 
The submitted printout from the Conference's website indicates that the Aspen Cancer Conference is held 
annually and is attended by scientists from across the United States and other countries, but neither the printout 
nor Dr. Harris' letter provide any further explanation of the selection criteria, competitiveness, or national 
recognition of this award. Even if nationally recognized, this award does not meet this criterion because it is an 
honor presented only to "promising young investigators" - not established scientists - and consequently does 
not reflect the requisite sustained acclaim. Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
(ii) Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in theJield for which classification is sought, 
which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international 
experts in their disciplines orJields. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of his Associate Membership in the American Association for Cancer 
Research (AACR) and his membership in the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). 
The submitted printouts from the AACR website state that Associate Membership is open to "graduate students, 
medical students and residents, clinical fellows in related subspecialties, and postdoctoral fellows who are 
enrolled in educational or training programs that could lead to careers in cancer research." The submitted 
Yage 3 
printout from the AAAS website states that membership is "open to all." The record thus does not establish that 
outstanding achievements are prerequisite to membership in AAAS or AACR at the level held by the petitioner. 
Accordingly, he does not meet this criterion. 
(iii) Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media, 
relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought. Such evidence shall include the 
title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
On appeal, the petitioner cites his own published articles and citations to his work as evidence of his eligibility 
under this criterion. Articles written by an alien are not published material about the alien. Citations of an 
alien's work by other scientists in their scholarly publications also do not meet this criterion because the citing 
articles are primarily about the authors' own research, not the work of the alien. On appeal the petitioner 
submits articles about areas in which he has worked, but none of the articles identify him The record contains 
no articles that feature or extensively discuss the petitioner's work in a manner consistent with sustained 
national or international acclaim. Accordingly, he does not meet this criterion. 
(iv) Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on apanel, as a judge of the work of others 
in the same or an alliedfield of speciJication for which classijkation is sought. 
The petitioner submitted evidence that he reviewed one manuscript for Oncogene in 2000 and one manuscript 
for Carcinogenesis in 1998. The record also contains a letter dated in 1998 inviting the petitioner to review 
papers for the Germany-Chinese Biomedical Society's Annual Meeting of Biomedicine, but no evidence that the 
petitioner accepted the invitation and actually completed the requested reviews. On appeal, the petitioner 
submits evidence that he reviewed one manuscript for Molecular and Cellular Biology, but we cannot consider 
this evidence because it arose after the petition was filed. The petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of 
filing; a petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of 
facts. See 8 C.F.R. fj 103.2(b)(12), Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Comm. 1971). The petitioner's 
curriculum vitae states that he is a reviewer for Oncogene, Carcinogenesis, Cancer Letter, and Cancer 
Research, but the record contains no evidence of his work for the latter two journals. Simply going on record 
without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient to meet the burden of proof in these proceedings. 
Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of Califonia, 14 I&N 
Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). The record thus shows that at the time of filing the petitioner had reviewed two 
manuscripts submitted for publication to two journals in his field. The completion of just two peer reviews over 
the five years between the petitioner's obtainment of his doctorate and the filing of this petition does not reflect 
the requisite sustained acclaim. Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientzjic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of 
major significance in the field. 
The record indicates that while employed at the West China University of Medical Sciences in Chengdu, China 
from 1988 to 1994, the petitioner researched new artificial bone materials for use in dental medicine. In 
December 1990, the NSFC awarded the petitioner a three-year grant for his project entitled "Fibrin Adhesive 
System with Particulate Hydroxylapatite Artificial Bone Material - An Experimental Study and Clinical 
Application." The petitioner's paper of the same name also received the Sichuan Province Youth Outstanding 
Scientific Paper award and was selected for presentation at the All China Scholarly Paper Exchange Conference 
on Modem Medicine in 1992. As discussed above under the first criterion, Professor ttests to the strict 
evaluation and competitiveness of NSFC grants but the record contains no evidence regarding the selection 
criteria or significance of the two latter distinctions. The petitiobr submitted evidence of four articles on this 
topic of which he is the lead author and that were published in four scientific journals between 1989 and 1993. 
Yet the record contains no evidence that these articles have been ,widely cited by other researchers in this field. 
Moreover, the petitioner's last documented work in this area ,occurred in 1993, nearly a decade before his 
petition was filed and does not reflect the requisite sustained acclaim. 
The record shows that the petitioner left China in 1994 to pursue graduate studies in Germany. After obtaining 
his doctorate in 1997, the petitioner was a postdoctoral fellow at the German Cancer Research Center ("the 
Center"). - Chief of the Unit of Gene-Environment Interactions at the International Agency for 
Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization, explains that the petitioner collaborated with him while 
at the Center and "established a knock-in mouse model with the p53 gene, a most important tumor suppressor 
gene. This achievement provides the scientific community with an important tool for mutation research, and 
will lead to the development of better therapies for cancer. More importantly, Dr. -has received a patent of 
'p53 knock-in mouse model' (Patent No. 198 01 780.4. Germany), in cooperation with my laboratory." The 
petitioner submitted a copy of an "Unexamined Patent Appl.ication" filed by the Center with the German Patent 
and Trademark Office in i998. The petitioner is listed as a co-inventor with Dr. an- 
Head of the Department of Genetic Alterations in Carcinogenesis at the Center and the petitioner's former 
supervisor. Yet the record contains no evidence that this patent was awarded. On appeal, counsel states that the 
patent was awarded prior to filing, but cites only the patent application previously submitted. 
As further evidence of the impact of the petitioner's work in this area, counsel on appeal submits an article 
published in Nature Cell Biology that reports on the use of the petitioner's p53 hock-in mouse model and 
evidence that a commercial laboratory now sells a p53 mutant mouse strain. We cannot consider the Nature 
Cell Biology article because it was published after th'e petition was filed. The petitioner must establish 
eligibility at the time of filing. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(12), Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. Although 
the submitted printout from the laboratory selling the p53 mutant mouse strain cites one of the petitioner's co- 
authored articles, the printout identifies the petitioner's former supervisor, Dr. Hollstein - not the petitioner 
himself - as the investigator who made the mutation. 
In 1999 the petitioner left Germany to accept a postdoctoral position in Dr. laboratory at the LHC. As 
explained by =<~ead of the Liver Carcinogenesis Section in the LHC and the petitioner's 
collaborator, the petitloner has discovered a mechanism of an important p53 downstream target gene, Gadd45, 
in the regulation of cell cycle checkpoint controls. He found a small region that is necessary for Gadd45- 
induced cell cycle arrest, a crucial step to block tumor growth. His results provide major implications and sets 
[sic] up a foundation for an efficient cancer therapy." Dr.further notes that the petitioner's "discovery on 
Gadd45 functions has provided a significant contribution to a new US patent (No. 091534,s 1 1) on the Methods 
for identifLing inhibitors of Gadd45." Yet the record contains no evidence of this patent or its citation to the 
petitioner's work. 
1-1 Professor of Molecular Oncology at the University of Oxford and Deputy Director of the 
Oxford Cancer Centre who has also collaborated with the petitioner, explains that the petitioner has also "shown 
that the p53 protein controls the activity of two DNA helicase enzymes that are required for general 
maintenance of genome stability and the suppression of cancer. As such, this highly significant and novel result 
provides new and exciting links between tumor suppression and control of genome stability. Given that p53 is 
the gene most commonly mutated in human cancers, and that a breakdown in genomic stability is a universal 
feature of cancer cells, a whole new area of potential for anticancer therapy has been opened up by Dr. Yang's 
findings." 
I, 
Lawrence A. Loeb, Professor of Pathology and Biochemistry at the University of Washington and Director of 
the Gottstein Memorial Cancer Research Laboratories, has also collaborated with the petitioner. Professor 
Loeb explains that the petitioner is working on enzymes that unwind DNA and that "[m]utations in the genes 
that encode these enzymes are associated with Werner and Bloom syndromes, two inherited human diseases 
with an unusually high incidence of cancer. Thus, understanding how these enzymes work may provide us with 
important clues to the cause of human cancer. I can state without reservation that Dr. Yang's contributions to 
these studies are essential and instrumental in achieving their success. Our laboratory has benefited enormously 
from Dr. Yang's contributions and scientific excellence." 
The record shows that the petitioner co-authored 11 articles concerning his research at the Center and LHC that 
were published in Oncogene, the British Journal of Cancer, Carcinogenesis, the Journal of Biological 
Chemistry, Cancer Research and other journals between 1997 and 2002. The submitted Institute for Scientific 
Information (ISI) Journal Citation Reports show that these five journals are highly ranked in the fields of 
oncology and biochemistry and molecular biology. The submitted IS1 citation lists show that, at the time of 
filing, nine of the petitioner's articles had been cited a combined total of 65 times by other research teams. The 
petitioner's co-authored article, "New Approaches to Understanding p53 Gene Tumor Mutation Spectra," 
published in Mutation Research in 1999 had been cited 21 times. In addition, the petitioner submitted copies of 
five abstracts, of which he is the lead author, which were presented at scientific conferences in his field between 
1998 and 2002. As discussed under the first criterion, the petitioner received a Young Investigator Award at one 
of these conferences. Yet the record does not indicate that the petitioner's work received special recognition at 
any of the other four conferences. 
Nearly all of the ten recommendation letters submitted with the petition and the seven letters submitted on 
appeal attest to the importance of the petitioner's p53 knock-in mouse model, his identification of a functional 
domain in the Gadd45 gene, and his discovery that p53 regulates human helicase activity. In addition to the 
previously quoted letters, the petitioner submitted recommendations from his supervisor at the LHC, Dr.- 
- Professor of Toxicology and Chemistry at the Massachusetts institute of Technology and a 
member of the National Academy of Sciences; - Distinguished Professor of Melecular 
Cellular and Developmental Biology at the University of Colorado and a member of the National Academy of 
Sciences; Dr. of the German Cancer Research Center; Helmut Bartsch, Head of the Division of 
Toxicology and Cancer Risk Factors at the German Cancer Research Center; and "'Professor of 
Maxillo-facial Surgery at the West China University of Medical Sciences. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits additional letters from the following independent experts: - 
Professor of Pharmacology, Director of the - Laboratory for Cancer Research at Rutgers 
University and a member of the National Academy of Sciences; r' 
' - Assistant Professor of 
Pharmacology, Cancer Biology and Radiation Oncology at Duke University Medical Center; Thanos 
Halazonetis, Principal Investigator and Professor within the Molecular and Cellular Oncogenesis Program at the 
Wistar Institute in Philadelphia; Hitoshi Nakagarna, Principal Investigator and Chief of the Biochemistry 
Division of the National Cancer Research Institute in Japan; Professor at the Institute of 
Veterinary Biochemistry and Molecular Biology within the University of Zurich; , Research 
Professor of the Finnish Academy of Sciences of the University of Helsinki; and Fabrizio Palitti, Principal 
Page 8 
Investigator and Head of the Laboratorio di Citogenetica Molecolare e Mutagenesi at the Universit; degli Studi 
della Tuscia in Italy. 
We have noted the qualifications and assessments of these scientists who clearly attest to the importance of the 
petitioner's work. While letters such as these provide' relevant information about an alien's experience and 
accomplishments, they cannot by themselves establish the alien's eligibility under this criterion because they do 
not demonstrate that the alien's work is of major significance in his field beyond the limited number of 
individuals with whom he has worked directly. Even when written by independent experts, letters solicited by 
an alien in support of an immigration petition carry less weight than preexisting, independent evidence of major 
contributions that one would expect of an alien who has achieved sustained national or international acclaim. 
Accordingly, we reviewed the letters as they related to other evidence of the petitioner's contributions. 
On appeal, counsel contends that because the petitioner wsrks in basic-as opposed to applied-science, "the 
national or international acclaim of [his] achievement is limited to a small scientific community." We 
understand that the significance of the petitioner's research may only be fully appreciated by a limited number 
of scientists with the same or similar specialties. However, counsel does not claim, and the record does not 
demonstrate, that the petitioner's research is so esoteric that it cannot be fully documented through publications, 
conference presentations, citations and other objective means by which researchers generally communicate their 
findings to other scientists. In this case, the importance of the petitioner's work as discussed in the 
recommendation letters is not fully corroborated by evidence of the petitioner's publications, citations, awards 
and other documentation of his work. In sum, the record does not establish that the petitioner's research 
findings have made original, major contributions to his field in a manner consistent with the requisite sustained 
acclaim. Accordingly, he does not meet this criterion. 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the Jield, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
Frequent publication of research findings is inherent to success as an established scientist and does not 
necessarily indicate the sustained acclaim requisite to classification as an alien with extraordinary ability. 
Evidence of publications must be accompanied by documentation of consistent citation by independent experts 
or other proof that the alien's publications have had a significant impact in his field. In this case, the record 
shows that at the time of filing, the petitioner had co-authored 16 articles published in scientific journals 
between 1989 and 2002. The petitioner is the lead author of ten of these articles. The IS1 citation lists 
submitted with the petition show that at the time of filing, nine of the petitioner's articles had been cited a 
combined total of 65 times in the publications of other research teams. Four articles of which the petitioner is 
the lead author had been cited a combined total of 20 times. On appeal, the petitioner submits evidence of 
additional publications and citations of his work that we cannot consider because they occurred after the petition 
was filed. Again, the petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing. See 8 C.F.R. 9 103.2(b)(12), 
Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. On appeal, the petitioner also submits IS1 Journal Citation Reports indicating that, 
at the time of filing, his work had been published in the highest and three highly ranked journals in the field of 
oncology and in the highest ranked journal of biochemistry and molecular biology. 
The record indicates that the petitioner has successfully published his research in highly ranked journals in his 
field and that his articles have been cited by other research teams. However, the record shows that, at the time 
of filing, nearly half of the petitioner's articles had not been cited and that other researchers had only minimally 
cited eight of his other articles. Less than half of the petitioner's articles of which he is the lead author had been 
cited (and only minimally so). In addition, the petitioner's most highly cited article was published in 1999, over 
three years before this petition was filed. While we undhstand that it takes time for the impact of a scientific 
article to be reflected by citation in the publications of other researchers, we must evaluate an alien's eligibility 
at the time of filing. See 8 C.F.R. fj 103.2(b)(12), Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. The petitioner's publication 
and citation record at the time of filing does not demonstrate the requisite sustained acclaim. Accordingly, he 
does not meet this criterion. 
(viii) Evidence that the alien ha: performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments 
that have a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner initially claimed to meet this criterion through his work at West China University of Medical 
Sciences, the German Cancer Research center, and the LHC. On appeal, the petitioner only contends that he 
plays a critical role in Dr. Harris' laboratory at the LHC. Dr. Harris concludes his July 12, 2002 letter by 
stating, ''the continuing participation of Dr. Yang. in these extremely important research projects is essential to 
their successful completion. . . . It would be difficult, if not impossible, to replace Dr. Yang, and his inability to 
continue playing a key role on these projects would be absolutely devastating." While the petitioner may 
perform a leading or critical role in his own laboi-atory, Dr. Harris does not state, and the record contains no 
evidence that, the petitioner plays a leading or critical role for the LHC, NCI or NIH as a whole. Accordingly, 
he does not meet this criterion. 
(ix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signiJicantly high remuneration for 
services, in relation to others in thejeld 
The petitioner did not initially claim eligibility under this criterion. On appeal, he claims to satisfy this category 
by virtue of his salary as a NIH research fellow. The record shows that, at the time of filing, the petitioner's 
salary was $48,535. While the article published in Science and submitted on appeal shows that the average 
salary of postdoctoral researchers in 2001 ranged between $32,000 and $37,000, it also reports that the median 
gross salaries for scientists in 2001 was $80,000 in academia and $96,000 in the private sector. The relevant 
comparison in this case is not simply the income of other postdoctoral researchers, but the salaries of all 
research scientists in the petitioner's field. The petitioner submitted no evidence that his salary at the time of 
filing was higher than other scientists in his field, including professors and principal investigators, or 
comparable to researchers at the very top of his field. Accordingly, he does not meet this criterion. 
An immigrant visa will be granted to an alien under section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. fj 1153(b)(l)(A), 
only if the alien can establish extraordinary ability through extensive documentation of sustained national or 
international acclaim demonstrating that the alien has risen to the very top of his or her field. The record in this 
case does not establish that the petitioner had achieved sustained national or international acclaim as a scientist 
placing him at the very top of his field at the time of filing. He is thus ineligible for classification as an alien 
with extraordinary ability pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. fj 1 153(b)(l)(A), and his 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. 8 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.