dismissed EB-1A Case: Muscle Biology

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
Zclert:' : - 1?1Et5d to U.S. C~t~zensh~p and Immlgrat~on Services Office ofAdm~n~stratrve Appeals, MS 2090 
. , 
 ,- : : 2 cy.-,-*:~~ 
- PYCX- 
Washmgton, DC 20529-2090 
1 ton. 
blW2sIoi1 01 :Z,_,r ;-TL; 3~ J U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
PUBLIC COPY 
identieing data deleted to 
prevent clearly unv~sranted 
invasion of personal grivae) 
FILE: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: .)UN 1 1 2009 
SRC 07 236 5 1365 
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: 
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. 
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. $ 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $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. ij 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
F. Grissom 
$-""- 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 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. 
 For the reasons discussed below, we uphold the 
director's ultimate finding that the petitioner has not established his eligibility for the classification 
sought. 
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. 60897,60898-9 (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. tj 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. 
Page 3 
This petition seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as a postdoctoral 
research fellow, an inherently entry-level position.1 While neither the statute nor the regulations 
preclude those just beginning their post-academic careers from eligibility, we will not narrow the 
petitioner's field to those with his level of experience. The petitioner must demonstrate that his 
achievements compare with the small percentage at the top of the field, including the most experienced 
and renowned members of the field. 
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, international 
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, he claims, meets the 
following criteria.' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The director concluded that the petitioner's provincial award and scholarship at the University of 
Minnesota could not serve to meet this criterion. The petitioner does not contest this conclusion on 
appeal; rather, the petitioner asserts that his award and scholarship support a finding that his 
contributions have been of major significance. We concur with the director's findings under this 
criterion and will consider this evidence below as requested by the petitioner on appeal. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which class$cation is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national 
or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
The director concluded that the petitioner's memberships in Sigma Xi (which requires a "noteworthy 
achievement" that can be demonstrated merely by a publication or thesis) and the American 
Physiological Society cannot serve to meet this criterion. The petitioner does not contest this 
conclusion on appeal and we concur with the director. 
1 
 The petitioner's Ph.D. advisor, 
 explains that the petitioner's current postdoctoral 
position will provide "additional training in his selected area of research." See also 
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos047.htm#training (accessed May 21, 2009 and incorporated into the record of 
proceedings). 
The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
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 alliedfield of speczjication for which classijication is sought. 
The etitioner has reviewed manuscripts for Animal: An International Journal of Animal Bioscience. 
D , a section editor for the journal, provides two letters in support of the petition. In his 
first letter, mpraises the petitioner's research contributions. These statements will be considered 
below as they relate to the contributions criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(v). further states 
that he has invited the petitioner to review manuscripts for the journal "based upon his ex ertise in 
muscle biology and the [insulin-like growth factor (IGF)] field." In his second letter, asserts 
that the beneficiary is regularly requested to review manuscripts for the journal based on "his solid 
background and significant achievements in muscle biology and IGFs system." further asserts 
that the petitioner's "scientific reputation and his international credentials mean that he is sought out 
[by] editors like myself to provide high quality peer review." The record, however, does not establish 
that the petitioner has been requested to review manuscripts for any other journal. 
The director concluded that the petitioner had not demonstrated that participation in the peer review 
process sets the petitioner apart fiom other members of the field. On appeal, the petitioner notes that 
the manuscripts he has reviewed come from around the world, reiterates the statements in = 
letters and asserts that the director added an extra requirement to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
6 204.5 (h)(3)(iv). 
The evidence submitted to meet a given criterion must be indicative of or consistent with national or 
international acclaim if that statutory standard is to have any meaning. Thus, USCIS may consider 
whether the judging duties set the alien apart from others in his field. See generally Yasar v. DHS, 
2006 WL 778623 *9 (S.D. Tex. March 24,2006); All Pro Cleaning Services v. DOL et al., 2005 WL 
4045866 "11 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 26,2005). 
mpraises the petitioner, but does not provide any information that would demonstrate that being 
asked to review manuscripts for Animal sets a researcher in the petitioner's field apart from other 
members of the field. For example, 
 does not suggest that Animal boasts an unusually small, 
elite group of reviewers that are credited in the journal. 
We cannot ignore that scientific journals are peer reviewed and rely on many scientists to review 
submitted manuscripts. Thus, peer review is routine in the field and is not indicative of or consistent 
with sustained national or international acclaim. Without evidence that sets the petitioner apart fiom 
others in his field, such as evidence that he has reviewed an unusually large number of articles, received 
independent requests fiom a substantial number of journals, or served in an editorial position for a 
distinguished journal, we cannot conclude that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
Page 5 
Evidence of the alien's original scientiJic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signiJicance in the$eld. 
d 
The record contains the petitioner's provincial award, academic scholarship, published articles, citation 
record, and letters from members of the petitioner's field. The director concluded that the letters did 
not demonstrate that the petitioner's contributions in the field were sufficient to meet this criterion. On 
appeal, the petitioner reiterates many of the statements in the letters and notes that he has published 
cited articles, won a provincial award, received an academic scholarship, received research funding 
through three Chinese grants, was invited to review manuscripts and presented his research. We will 
consider all of this evidence below. We note, however, that evidence insufficient to meet the criteria to 
which they directly relate will not be presumed to demonstrate that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
The petitioner's field, like most science, 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. According to the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 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. 
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. 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 
from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; CIS may evaluate the 
content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795. USCIS may 
even give less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated, in accord with other information or is in 
any way questionable. Id. at 795; see also Matter ofSofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Commr. 1998) 
(citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l. Comm'r. 1972)). 
In evaluating the reference letters, we note that letters containing mere assertions of widespread 
acclaim and vague claims of contributions are less persuasive than letters that specifically identi@ 
contributions and provide specific examples of how those contributions have influenced the field. 
In addition, 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 and are merely responding to a 
solicitation to review the petitioner's curriculum vitae and work and provide an opinion based solely 
on this review. 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 
Page 6 
individual with sustained national or international acclaim should be able to produce unsolicited 
materials reflecting that acclaim. 
The petitioner obtained his Master of Science degree in Animal Science in 1993 from Zhejiang 
University. He then worked as an instructor and researcher at that university through August 1999. In 
1999, the petitioner entered a Ph.D. program at the University of Minnesota. He received his Ph.D. in 
Animal Science in 2005 and went to work as a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of North 
Carolina, the position he held on the date of filing the petition, August 2,2007. 
The record contains only one letter discussing the petitioner's research at Zhejiang University in detail. 
Section Head and Senior Investigator at GlaxoSmithKline's Division of Pharmacology, 
asserts that the petitioner's research at Zhejiang University involved animal nutrition. notes 
that this work resulted in 21 published articles that were well cited. These assertions are supported by 
the record. further asserts that the petitioner was the principal investigator for three national 
and regionally funded programs. Finally, asserts that one of the petitioner's projects received 
the second grade Zhejiang Science and Technology Progress Award. Ths award is in the record. Dr. 
indicates that he first came to know of the petitioner in 2007 when they both attended a conference 
in Toronto, Canada, and does not suggest that he personally was influenced by the petitioner's work in 
China, which all predates 1999. 
In 1998, the petitioner received the second grade Zheijiang Provincial Science and Technology 
Advancement Award for hs project "Development and Marketing of Nutrients Partition Additive 
(Betaine) for Livestock." The petitioner's 1999 article on the effect of exogenous enzyme preparations 
on activity of endogenous digestive enzymes in livestock has been cited 50 times; his 2000 article on 
the growth response of pigs fed a pharmacological level of copper has been cited 24 times and his 1998 
article on the effect of neutral protease on nitrogen utilization and activities of endogenous digestive 
enzymes in domestic bison has been cited 14 times. Two additional articles published in China have 
been cited 12 and 7 times. The remaining articles published while the petitioner was a researcher in 
China have been cited no more than five times. 
The provincial recognition and citation certainly suggest an interest in the petitioner's research in 
China. This evidence, however, would have been bolstered by letters from researchers with first-hand 
knowledge of the influence of this work explaining why this work was significant and original and how 
it was actually applied in China. 
The petitioner submitted three letters from members of his Ph.D. advisory committee at the University 
of Minnesota. explains that while pursuing his Ph.D., the petitioner displayed a 
strong background in animal agriculture and mastery of several techniques, including the use of SiRNA 
to suppress expression of a binding protein. ontinues that the petitioner's doctoral research 
focused on the insulin-like growth factor binding protein IGFBP-3. Specifically, according to Dr. 
the petitioner discovered and characterized the mechanism of action by which IGFBP-3 
regulates proliferation and differentiation of cultured embryonic porcine muscle cells, demonstrating 
that IGFBP-3 plays a key role in regulating both the rate and extent of muscle growth in pigs. Dr. 
projects that these studies "along with those he will accomplish in the future, will provide the 
information necessary to use molecular biology and genetic engineering strategies to increase rate and 
efficiency of muscle growth in pigs." In addition, suggests that because loss of sensitivity 
to IGFBP-3 is "thought to play a role in the uncontrolled proliferation of some cancer cells," the 
petitioner's research may be applicable to cancer research. asserts that the petitioner's 
publication rate was one of the best achieved by any of -~ s Ph.D. students. We will not, 
however, narrow the petitioner's field to other Ph.D. students. Finally, 
 notes that the 
petitioner's research served as the basis for the renewal of a competitive research grant. 
k 
does not ex~lain whether it is unusual for him to utilize his collaborations with his students to see 
renewals of his grants.: and , the petitioner's other Ph.D. 
- 
advisors, provide similar information. 
, the petitioner's postdoctoral supervisor, discusses the petitioner's somewhat 
new area of research at the University of North Carolina insulin-like growth factors and their relation 
to the control of atherosclerosis in patients with diabetes. explains that by focusing on cell 
stress caused by high blood glucose, the petitioner discovered "a new signaling mechanism by which 
the stress impulse is conveyed to the cells through a unique signaling protein" and showed "how 
induction of this protein changes the signaling environment such that cells will become much more 
susceptible to growth stimulation by this growth factor in response to this injury." 
speculates as to the future potential of the petitioner's work in ths area and notes that the 
petitioner presented this work shortly before the petition was filed. The etitioner submits letters from 
members of the field who attended this presentation. , a senior investigator at 
GlaxoSmithKline, asserts that the petitioner's work at the University of North Carolina provides new 
molecular targets to develop a potential new anti-atherosclerotic drug. does not suggest that 
GlaxoSmithKline has expressed any interest in pursuing such a drug based on the petitioner's research. 
', an associate professor at the university of ~ok~o, asserts that the 
petitioner's results on the difference of three amino acids in human and mouse J33 integrin "partially 
explain why diabetic mouse does not spontaneously form atherosclerotic lesion under the hypoglycemia 
condition." explains that this work is important in determining the appropriate animal 
model to study atherosclerosis. 
The remaining independent references provide general praise of the petitioner's work and the 
importance of his area of research, but fail to explain how the petitioner's work is already impacting the 
field. 
The evidence of citation as of the date of filing does not demonstrate that any one of the petitioner's 
articles reporting his research at the University of Minnesota or the University of North Carolina has 
been cited more than seven times. Subsequent citation does not relate to the petitioner's eligibility as of 
the date of filing. See 8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l. 
Cornrn'r. 1971). 
The record reflects that the petitioner's work in China, before obtaining his Ph.D., is well cited and was 
recognized with a provincial award, but the record lacks an explanation of this impact. Regardless, the 
petitioner must demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim. The petitioner has been 
performing research in the United States in a somewhat different area since 1999. The petitioner's 
recent research is not documented to have been as influential. While this work has been moderately 
cited, the letters in the record provide mostly speculation as to the future significance of this work 
rather than an explanation as to how this work has already had a major impact on the field. 
In light of the above, 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. 
The director concluded that the petitioner meets this criterion. Based on the petitioner's extensive 
publication record, including evidence of consistent citation, we reaffirm the director's finding. 
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. 
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. The petitioner, a postdoctoral research fellow, relies on his publications, citation record, 
participation in the peer review process, provincial and academic awards and the praise of his peers. 
While this may distinguish him from other ~ostdoctoral researchers, we will not narrow his field to 
- 
others with his level of training 
 as a panel manager, evaluating 
hundreds of research proposals. 
 have also reviewed research proposals 
for the U.S. Department of an international journal. Dr. 
- is Chair of the Animal Science Department at Iowa State University and has 
evaluated faculty for promotion to tenure "at various universities throughout the United States." 
Independent reference a program leader at the Medical Research Council in Scotland, 
asserts that he serves on the editorial board of two journals. Thus, the top of the field appears 
significantly higher than the level the petitioner has attained. 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself as a 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 as a postdoctoral research fellow, 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. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.