dismissed EB-1A Case: Neurobiology

(b)(6)
DATE: FEB 1 3 2013 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S . .Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
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: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen in 
accordance with the instructions on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The specific 
requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.F.R . § 103.5. Do not file any motion directly with 
the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires any motion to be filed within 30 clays of the 
decision that ,the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
Ron Rosenberg 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition on September 13, 2012. The petitioner, who is also the beneficiary, appealed the decision to 
the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on October 1, 2012 .1 The appeal will be dismissed. 
According to part 6 of the petition and couns el' s letter dated Julie 15, 2012, initially tiled in support of 
the petition, the petitioner seeks classification as an "alien .of extraordinary ability" as a "post-doctoral 
research associate" in the field of neurobiology, pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(1 )(A). The director determined that the petitioner 
failed to establish his sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification 
as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the statute 
that the petitioner demonstrate the alien 's "sustained national or international acclaim " and present 
"extensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section § 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act; 
8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that an alien can 
establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement of a 
major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award , the regulation outlines 
. ten categories of specific objective evidence . 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The petitioner must 
submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory categories of evidence to establish 
the basic eligibility requirements. 
On ae eal, counsel submits an eight-page brief and the following documents: (1) a 2010 
document of two charts entitled ' 
(2) a 20 II online printout entitled ' - · 
'; and (3) a two -page Google scholar printout relating to citation frequency of the 
petitioner 's articles. The petitioner previously submitted all three documents . For the reasons 
discussed below, the petitioner has not established his eligibility for the exclusive classification sought. 
Specifically, the petitioner has not satisfied at least three of the ten regulatory criteria under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) with relevant, probative evidence, and in the final merits determination, the petitioner has 
not demonstrated that he is one of the small percentage who are at the very top of the field and has not 
demonstrated his sustained national or international acclaim. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h) {2), (3). 
Accordingly, the AAO must dismiss the petitioner's appeal. 
I. THE LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states , in pertinent part, that: 
1. Priority workers. - Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrant s who 
are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
1 
On appeal, counsel filed two Notic es of Appeal or Motion, Form s I-290B. The United States Postal Servic e (USPS) 
online printouts indicat e that USPS delivered the first Form I-290B to United State s Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS) o n Monday , October 1, 2012; and delivered the second Form l-290B to USCIS on Wedne sday, October 10, 2012 . 
This decision relates to the first Form I-290B , 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
(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. 
United States 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and 
Naturalization Service (INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high 
standard for individuals seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 101st 
Cong., 2d Sess. 59 (1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). The term "extraordinary 
ability" refers only to those individuals in that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the 
field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R . § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be established 
either through evidence of a one-time achievement, that is, a major, internationally recognized award , 
· or through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten categories of evidence 
listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5(h)(3)(i)-(x). · 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the denial of a petition filed under 
this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although the court upheld the 
AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the AAO's evaluation of the evidence 
submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion. 2 With respect to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised legitimate concerns 
about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, those concerns should have 
been raised in a subsequent "final merits determination." Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1121-22. · 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the petitioner 
failed to submit sut1icient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed to satisfy the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 
1122 (citing to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). 
Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary requirements 
beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi). 
(b)(6)
Page 4 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then considered 
in the context of a final merits determination. In this case, the petitioner has not shown that he meets at 
least three of the ten regulatory criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). In addition , in the final 
merits determination, the petitioner has not shown that he is one of a small percentage who have risen 
to the very top of the field or that he has sustained national or international acclaim. See section 
203(b)(1)(A) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 3 
Under the regulation at 8 C .F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), the petitioner can establish his sustained national or 
international acclaim and that his achievements have been recognized in the field of endeavor by 
presenting evidence of his receipt a one-tim e achievement that is a major, internationally recognized 
award . In this case, the petitioner has not asserted or shown through his evidence that he is the 
recipient of a major, internationally recogniz ed award, at a level similar to that of the Nobel Priz e. As 
such, the petitioner must present at least three of the ten types of evidence under the regulations at 
8 C.F.R . § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) to meet the basic eligibility requirements. 
Documentation of the alien 's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the fteld of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
In his September 13, 2012 decision, the director concluded that the petitioner failed to meet this 
criterion . On appeal, counsel states in his brief that "[i)t should be noted that the petitioner did win 
[sic] three categories [of evidence] , even though more were claimed, and the categories won [sic] will 
not be reviewed. But other categories should also have been won [sic], and these additional categories 
could have had impact on the [director's] analysis in Part II [final merits determination). " On appeal, 
counsel does not specifically challenge the director's adverse finding as relating to this criterion. 
See Desravines v. United States Att'y Gen., No. 08-14861, 343 F. App'x 433, 435 (11th Cir. 2009) 
(finding that issues not briefed on appeal by a prose litigant are deemed abandoned); Tedder v. F.M. C. 
Corp., 590 F.2d 115, 117 (5th Cir. 1979) (deeming abandoned an issue raised in the statement of issues 
but not anywhere else in the brief). Accordingly, the petitioner has abandoned this issue, as he did not 
timely raise it on appeal. Sepulveda v. United States Att 'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226 , 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 
2005); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *1, 9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) 
(the United States District Court found the plaintiff's claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise them 
on appeal to the AAO). 
' The petitioner doe s not claim that it has sa tisfied the regulatory categ o ries of evid ence not discus sed in this decision . 
(b)(6)
Page 5 
Documentation of the alien 's membership in associations in the field for which classiflc:ation is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) . 
In his September 13, 2012 decision, the director concluded that the petitioner failed to meet this 
criterion. On appeal , counsel does not specifically challenge the director's adverse finding as relating 
to this criterion. See Desravin es, 343 F. App'x at 435; Tedder, 590 F.2d at 117. Accordingly , the 
petitioner has abandoned this issue, as he did not timely raise it on appeal. Sepulveda , 401 F.3d at 
1228 n.2; Hristov, 2011 WL 4711885 at *9. 
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 allied field of specification for. which classification is sought. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) . 
In his September 13, 2012 decision, the director concluded that the petitioner met this criterion. Based 
on the evidence in the record , the AAO affirms the director ' s finding. Accordingly , the petition er has 
submitted evidence of his participation , either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an allied field of specification for which classification is sought. The petitioner 
has satisfied this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
Evidence of the alien 's original scientific , scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.:?(h)(3)(v). 
· In his September 13, 2012 decision , the director concluded that the petitioner met this criterion. The 
AAO disagrees. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 
2001) , ajf'd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. Dep 't of Justice , 381 F.3d 143, 145-46 
(3d Cir. 2004) (noting that the AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis) . 
The evidence in the record shows that while working with 
Professor and Chairman at the 
Distinguished 
the petitioner ' s research , focusing on epilepsy , resulted in original discoverie s. 
A 
number of his reference letters attest to the originality of his discoveries. For example, according to a 
March 2 . ~012 letter from 
[The petitioner] was essential in characterizing and establishing the only known animal 
models, DBN2 (sub-acute) and DBN2 (chronic), in which SUDEP [Sudden 
Unexpected Death in Epilepsy] could be. reliably induced .... [The petitioner] found 
that Prozac (fluoxetine ), a selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitor used to treat 
depression could prevent S UDEP associated with AGS [audiogenic seizure] in DBA/2 
and /1 mice in a dose-dependent manner. [The petitioner] further characterized which 
genes might be essential for this recovery. This suggests a completely novel method for 
preventing sudden death in epilepsy. 
(b)(6)
Page 6 
According to a March 8, 2012 letter from Professor 
(A ]s a part of his graduate research(, the petitioner] has successfully characterized in 
vivo molecular events in the amygdala ... that mediate epileptogenesis in genetically 
epilepsy-prone rats (GEPRs). He found that merely one-time focal administration of an 
activator an enzyme (adenylyl cyclase) in the amygdala could precipitously and 
permanently result in epileptogenesis, and also showed that inhibition of this enzyme 
could block the epileptic behavior in GEPRs .... In addition to these studies, (the 
petitioner] developed a novel electrical stimulation and recording approach in awake­
behaving rats for characterizing in vivo changes in neuronal network interactions. 
Although the evidence establishes the originality of the petitioner ' s work in the area of epilepsy, 
pursuant to the discussion below, the evidence fails to show that the work constitutes contributions of 
major significance in the field of neurobiology. First, evidence that other scientists cited and built 
upon the petitioner's research is insufficient ~o demonstrate that the petitioner's work constitutes 
contributions of major significance in the fi~ld. Although the petitioner has provided specific 
examples of other scientists' reliance on his research findings , the petitioner has not shown that these 
examples demonstrate that his work and findings have been widely accepted and adopted in the field, 
such that they constitute contributions of major significance in the field of neurobiology as a whole. 
I 
Professor continues that he and the Jetitioner have "published [] important papers on this 
SUDEP model, which have been well received by the medical and neuroscience fields ." More 
specifically, according to Professor t~e petitioner's "important findings have recently been 
clinically verified by ' Accordin 
to a March 23, 2012 letter from a professor at the 
Department of Neurology, the petitioner's "fundamental research in animal models of epilepsy was the 
basis of some of the work that [Professor hasl subsequently done in patients with epilepsy .... " 
According to a July 30, 2012 letter from Associate Professor of 
Clinical Neurology also at the . "[a]s a result of [the petitioner]'s 
research, [Professor was able to establish that seizure-associated respiratory dysfunction was 
less severe in patients taking SSRI [selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor] than in thosd, not taking 
these medications." 
According to a Mav 23, 2012 letter from Associate Professor at 
the and Staff Neurologist at the Department of 
Pediatrics , Division of Neurology, the petitioner's work "has vast clinical applications and has 
informed the work of many other scientists." Her only example, however, is that she personally has 
referenced his work. provides the website information for the citing article, thereby 
incorporating that article into the record of proceeding. In this article, a review article, 
merely references the petitioner 's work in a single sentence among the 53 studies she references . She 
does not suggest in this article that she has applied his work in her own research. According to an 
August 2, 2012 letter from • . Professor of Neurology at the 
Depa11ment of Functional Neurology and Epileptology , "[b ]ased 
on [the petitioner's] work, [Professor group has designed and launched a pionnered [sic] 
(b)(6)
Page 7 
randomised [sic] controlled trial aiming at testing the potential of fluoxetine to prevent ictal/post-ictal 
hypoxemia in patients with refrqctory epilepsy." 
Although the evidence, including the abovementioned reference letters, shows that the petitioner's 
work relating to epilepsy has affected the work of scientists in at least two institutions, and that these 
scientists have found the petitioner's research findings to be "very important" or "well-received," the 
evidence is insufficient to show that the petitioner's work constitutes contributions of "major 
significance" in the entire field of neurobiology, as required under the plain language of the criterion. 
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 .Jrom the scientific 
community. Any Ph.D. thesis or postdoctoral research, in order to be accepted for graduation, 
publication or funding, must offer new and useful information to the pool of knowledge. 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. 
Second, much of the evidence suggests that the petitioner's work and researching findings mere! has 
the potential of becoming significant. For example, according to a March 5, 2012 letter from 
"==-==---~-·· Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Neuroscience at the 
_ Department of Pharmacology and Neuroscience, Institute of Aging and 
Alzheimer's Disease Research, "[the petitioner]'s findings are very promising and indicate that Prozac 
(fluoxetine), a commonly prescribed anti-depressant medicine, could prevent sudden death. This 
discover y bv fthe petitioner] can save lives of many epileptic patients." (Emphasis added.) 
Professor of Neurology at Chief Academic Officer for the 
and former 
predicted in his April 13, 2012 letter, that the petitioners worK nas 
identified a potential safe and effective way to prevent ... SUDEP ," his work "holds the potential for 
saving tens of thousands of lives in this country and multiples of that worldwide," and his work "[is] 
the most promising approach to [SUDEP] solution." (Emphasis added.) 
rofessor of Neurology at the 
. . _ stated in his April 6, 2012 letter that the petitioner's work "has opened 
a window that could lead to the prevention of the sudden death" and that "further studies by [the 
petitioner] and other colleagues may lead to the use of a readily available medication to reduce 
mortality in persons with epilepsy." (Emphasis added.) ln his April 23, 2012 letter , 
M.D., Ph.D., Director of Adult Epilepsy and the EEG Laboratory and Medical Director of the 
Comprehensive Epilepsy Program and the Neurology Residency Program, 
stated that the petitioner "discover[ ed] the 
only known drug to date that may help avert ... SUDEP ." (Emphasis added.) According to a July 18, 
2012 letter from Consultant Neurologist at 
the petitioner's work relating to epilepsy "has given rise to hypothe_s_e_s_w- ·hich 
can be tested in the clinical setting which may result in evidence-based strategies for the prevention of 
sudden death in epilepsy in humans." (Emphasis added.) Similarly, Professor predicted that 
"[i]f tluoxetine proves to be beneficial in improving ictal respiratory function without exacerbating 
seizures, this would represent the first potential therapeutic intervention to reduce the risk of SUDEP in 
(b)(6)
Page 8 . 
patients living with epilepsy. " (Emphasis added.) Speculations and predictions of possible 
significance in the future are insufficient to show that the petitioner has already made contributions of · 
major significance in the field. The plain language of the criterion requires the petitioner to show that 
he has already made contributions of major significance. As such , speculations of the potential 
importance of his work and research findings do not meet the criterion. 
Third, a February 2012 press release posted on fails to establish 
that the petitioner 's work in epilepsy constitutes contributions of maior significance in the field of 
neurobiology. A disclaimer at the end of the release states that is not responsible o the 
accuracy of the news releases posted by contributing institutions. In his April 8, 2012 letter, 
Professor and Head at the 
Department of Neurology , stated that "[i]n light of the clinical significance of prophylactic potential of 
chronic Prozac treatment in the DBA/1 mouse model of SUDEP published recently in the journal 
· in which [the petitioner] played an instrumental role, the editor initiated a press 
release , rare for a young scientist. " The Feb.ruary 2012 press release relates to the article' 
In it, Professor stated that and 
colleagues have made a very important observation "; Professor , stated that " [t]his paper is a 
major advance"; and Professor stated that "[t]he findings in this study are very important." The 
petitioner, however, has failed to demonstrate that his work and research findings, which have been 
categorized in the press release from the journal publishing the work as "a very important 
observation, " " major advance
" and "very important, " constitute contributions of "major significance" 
in the field of neurobiology as a whole. · Indeed, in the press release, Professor failed to state that 
the findin'gs already constitute · contributions of "major significance ." Rather , he speculated the 
"studies along this line may eventually lead to the use of currently available medicines in persons with 
poorly controlled seizures to reduce their risk for SUDEP. " (Emphasis added .) Moreover, a 
contribution of major significance is apparent from its ultimate impact upon dissemination, not the 
promise at the time of release. 
Fourth , evidence that the petitioner has published articles is indicative of the originality of his work , 
but not its impact. The regulations contain a separate criterion regarding the authorship of published 
articles. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). · If the regulations are to be interpreted with any logic, it must be 
presumed that the regulation views contributions as a separate evidentiary requirement from scholarly 
articles.4 The record also contains evidence that the petitioner's articles have been cited by other 
scientists and that he has given presentations relating to his work in epilepsy , but this evidence is 
insufficient to show that his work constitutes contributions of major significance in the field of 
neurobiology as a whole. According to Professor the petitioner's "findings were published in 
widely read and prestigious journals in ' The record also contains evidence 
relating to (1) a November 2011 Society for .Neuroscience conference presentation entitled 
4 
Publi cation and presentations arc not sufficient evidence under the regulati on at 8 C.F.R . ~ 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent 
evidence that they were of "major significance." Kazarian v. USCJS, 580 F.3d 1030 , 1036 (9th Cir. 2009), ajf'd in part, 
596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). In 2010 , the Kazarian court reaffirmed its holding that the AAO did not abuse its discretion in 
finding that the alien had not demonstrat ed contribution s of major significance : 596 F.3d at 1122. 
(b)(6)
Page 9 
showing that the petitioner was one of three resenters ; (2) a Nov ember 
2010 Societv for Neuroscience conference presentation entitled 
, ~ showing that the petitioner wa§ one of four 
presenters; and (3) a 2012 Google scholar online printout showing that, at the time of filing, the 
petitioner's articles had been individually cited mostly minimally, with one article cited moderately 
and one well cited. The evidence- including evidence that a few of the petitioner ' s articles have been 
cited above the aver age frequ ency of citations - does not show that scienti sts in the field of 
neurobiology have widely accepted the petitioner 's research findings or that the field of neurobiology 
has been notably impacted due to the petitioner's findings, publications or presentations. 
Furthermore , although in response to the director's request for evidence (RFE), the petitioner provided 
evidence relating to his presentation at the 
, the conference was held in August 
2012, after the petitioner filed the petition on June 26, 2012. This evidence will not be considered, 
because it is well established that the petitioner must demonstrate eligibility for the visa petition at the 
time of filing. See 8 C.F.R . §§ 103.2(b)(1) , (12); Matt er of Katigbak , 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'! 
Comm ' r 1971). 
Fifth, a 2012 Epilepsy Current s article entitled 
Ph.D., Interim Dow Chair of Neurolo~rv and Director o 
and Translational Research at the 
article ' 
. written by 
eurobiology Research, and Director of Basic 
which is a review of the petitioner ' s 2011 
fails to establish . -
that the petitioner's work in epilepsy constitutes contributions of major signific ance in the field of 
neurobiology. Specifically , the petitioner has not shown that one review article opining that his work 
"may " represent a "very feasible approach ," but acknowledging that " [ m ]ore safety and feasibility 
studies are needed" is sufficient to demonstrate that this work already represents a contribution of 
major significance in the field of neurobiology as a whole , as required by the plain language of the 
criterion. 
In addition, the evidence in the record fails to show that the petitioner's current research conducted in 
Professor • laboratory meets this criterion. The record includes evidence of originality of the 
petitioner's current work - for example, Professor stated that the petitioner's current work 
"provides novel and critical insights into the genetic origins of respiratory rhythm generating brainstem 
neuron al networks ." The record lacks, however, evidence showing that the original work and research 
findings constitute contributions of major significance in the field of neurobiology. For example, 
Professor stated in his March 2, 2012 letter, "[ u ]sing cutting edge genetic and physiological tools, 
[the petitioner] is identifying the connected sets of neurons that are responsible for the complex 
behaviors of breathing. " Professor then predicted , " [t)hese experiments will have fundamental 
impact on how we diagnose, treat, and understand diseases of breathing in humans." (Emphasis 
added.) He further speculated that the petitioner's work "is bound to have profound impact on [the] 
understanding of breathing" and his work "will profoundly affect how [scientists] look at disorders of 
breathing. " (Emphasis added .) Similarly , according to an April 23, 2012 letter from Professo1 
(b)(6)
Page 10 
the petitioner's "continued efforts [relating to breathing] will offer new insights into both aspects of 
developmental neuroscience and the physiology of breathing behaviors, and may [] one day benefit the 
treatment of diseases of these specific functions and pathways." (Emphasis added.) The content of the 
reference letters in the record, including those not specifically mentioned above, does not support the 
claim that the petitioner has already made contributions of major significance in his current work 
relating to breathing. Rather, the reference letters reveal that his work has potential value to the field. 
The plain language of the criterion requires a showing that the petitioner has already made 
contributions of major significance. As such, predictions or speculations of the potential importance of 
the petitioner's research do not meet the criterion. 
Furthermore, the Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board) has held that testimony should not be 
disregarded simply because it is "self-serving." See, e.g., Matter of S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 1328, 1332 
(BIA 2000) (citing cases). The Board also held, however: "We not only encourage, but require the 
introduction of corroborative testimonial and documentary evidence, where available." /d. If 
testimonial evidence lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for the petitioner to 
submit corroborative evidence. Matter ofY-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). 
Vague, solicited letters from colleagues that do not specifically identify contributions or provide 
specific examples of how those contributions influenced the field are insufficient to meet the criterion.
5 
Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009), aff'd in part, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). 
The opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and have been considered above. USCIS 
may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter 
olCaron Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791,795 (Comm'r. 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for 
making 'the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. !d. The 
submission of letters from references or experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of 
eligibility; USCIS may, as this decision has done above, evaluate the content of those letters as to 
whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795; see also Matter of V-K- , 24 I&N Dec. 500, 
n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). 
USCIS may even give less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated, in accord with other 
informationor is in any way questionable. !d. at 795; see also Matter ofSoffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
The reference letters in the record, including those not specifically mentioned above, primarily contain 
speculations of future impact and vague claims of contributions without specifically identifying 
contributions and providing specific examples of how those contributions already rise to a level 
consistent with major significance in the field. Merely repeating the language of the statute or 
regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. See Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. 
Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d Cir. 1990); Avyr Associates, Inc. v. 
Meissner, No. 95 Civ. 10729, 1997 WL 188942 at *1, 5 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 18, 1997). Similarly, USCIS 
need not accept primarily conclusory assertions. See 1756, Inc. v. United States Att'y Gen., 745 F. 
Supp. 9, 17 (D.C. Oist. 1990). In addition, the petitioner has failed to submit sufficient corroborating 
5 In 2010, the Kazarian court reiterated that the AAO's conclusion that "letters from physics professors attesting to [the 
alien's] contributions in the field" were insufficient was "consistent with the relevant regulatory language." 596 F.3d at 
1122. 
(b)(6)
,, 
Page 11 
evidence in existence 
prior to the preparation of the petition, which could have bolstered the weight of 
the reference letters. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence showing that he has made original 
sci~ntific, scholarly, artistic , athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field 
of neurobiology. The petitioner has not satisfied this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
Evidence of ihe alien 's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
· publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
In his September 13, 2012 decision, the director concluded that the petitioner has satisfied this 
criterion. Based on the evidence in the record , the AAO affirms the director's finding. Accordingly, 
the petitioner has submitted evidence of his authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional 
or major trade publications or other major media. The petitioner has satisfied this criterion. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
In his September 13, 2012 decision, the director concluded that the petitioner failed to meet this 
criterion. On appeal, counsel challenges the · director's adverse finding, stating that the evidence 
"unequivocally establishes [the petitioner's] critical role in the trailblazing discoveries which , notably 
include the only currently known drug that could prevent [SUDEP], and possibly also in SIDS [sudden 
infant death syndrome]. " Relying primarily on reference letters in the record , counsel concludes that 
"[ v ]ery clearly the critical role [the petitioner] played in his lab has been understood, and the reasons 
why he was considered critical have been clearly stated ." Although the record includes evidence 
relating to the petitioner's role in specific research studies, it lacks evidence showing that the petitioner 
has performed in a leading or critical role for any organization or establishment that has a distinguished 
reputation, as required under the plain language of the .criterion. 
Specifically, according to Professor letter, the petitioner "was a critical member of a group that 
showed that breathing is generated by neurons within a small region of the brain that express a specific 
develo·pmental gene , Dbx I . " The letter further states that the petitioner was "a [sic] integral part of a 
collaboration between [the) 
to test the role of a very small population of neurons thought to sense C02." The letter, 
however, fails to establish the petitioner's role , let alone a leading or critical role, in an organization or 
establishment. Rather. the letter discusses the petitioner's role in a rouo of scientists who were 
involved in Professor ; laboratory, part of the which 
is an organization and establishment that has an unspecified number of laboratories and departments. 
The petitioner's position within this university was , at the time of filing, as a post-doctoral research 
associate. 
Similarly, although Professor stated in his August 2, 2012 letter that the petitioner " lead [sic] 
and played a critical role in several studies over the past decade that have helped identify and 
(b)(6)
Page 12 
characterize the acute and chronic DBA mouse models that closely resemble human SUDEP," the 
letter fails to identify in what organization or establishment the petitioner has performed a leading or 
critical role. Rather, the letter discusses the petitioner's role in "several studies." 
Furthermore, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires evidence that 
the petitioner has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments, in the 
plural, that have a distinguished reputation. This requirement is consistent with the statutory 
requirement for extensive documentation. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act. As such, even if the 
petitioner had performed in a leading or critical role for the 
, the petitioner failed to meet this criterion because he failed to show that he performed in a 
similar role for a second organization or establishment that has a distinguished reputation. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence that he has performed in a leading or 
critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. The petitioner has 
not satisfied this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
B. Final Merits Determination 
Based on the evidence in the record, the petitioner has not submitted the requisite evidence under at 
least three evidentiary categories. Although the petitioner has submitted sufficient evidence regarding 
the participation as a judge criterion under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and the 
authorship · of scholarly articles criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), the petitioner satisfied no 
other criteria. Notwithstanding this finding, in accordance with the Kazarian opinion, given that the 
director's sole basis of denial was a final merits determination, the AAO will also conduct a final 
merits determination that considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner 
has demonstrated: (1) his "level of expertise indicating that [he] is one of [a] small percentage who 
have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor," and (2) that he "has sustained national or 
international acclaim and that his [] achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 
Section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 
For the reasons discussed below, the petitioner has notmade such a showing. Accordingly, the appeal 
must be dismissed. · 
At the outset, the AAO acknowledges several affirmations by. references that the petitioner has a 
unique and multidisciplinary educational background that would be an asset to the United States. As 
relating to this petition, however, the issue is not whether the petitioner has a background that 
demonstrates his potential to benefit the United States but whether he already enjoys national or 
. international acclaim in the field of neurobiology. 
With regard to the . prizes or awards for excellence criterion under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i), as discussed above, the petitioner has not satisfied this criterion. See section 
203(b)(1)(A) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 
Specifically, the director concluded in his September 13, 2012 decision that the petitioner failed to 
submit sufficient evidence to show that any of his awards or prizes constituted a nationally or 
internationally recognized prize or award of excellence in the field of neurobiology. On appeal, the 
(b)(6)
Page 13 
petitioner has not challenged this adverse finding. See Desravines, 343 F. App'x at 435; Tedder, 590 
F.2d at 117; Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1228 n.2; Hristov, 2011 WL 4711885 at *9. Thus, the petitioner ' s 
.awards or prizes are not indicative of national or international acclaim or status within the small 
percentage at the top of the field. 
With regard to the membership in associatiOns critefion under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii), as discussed above, the petitioner has not satisfied this criterion. See section 
203(b)(1)(A) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20 . 
Specifically, the director concluded in his September 13, 2012 decision that the petitioner failed to 
submit sufficient evidence to show that the associations, in which the petitioner claimed membership, 
required outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international 
experts in their disciplines or fields. On appeal, the petitioner has not challenged this adverse finding. 
See Desravines, 343 F. App'x at 435; Tedder, 590 F.2d at 117; Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1228 n.2; 
Hristov, 2011 WL 4711885 at *9. Thus , the petitioner's membership in 
is not indicative of national or international acclaim or status within the small percentage at 
the top of the field. 
With regard to the participation as a judge criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), although the 
petitioner meets this criterion, he fails to show his eligibility for the employment classification sought. 
See section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act; 8 C.F.R.· §§ 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-
20. On appeal, counsel asserts that the very inclusion of this criterion reveals that any evidence 
satisfying it is evidence of national or international acclaim. This assertion is not in accordance with 
Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1121-22. Rather, the court explicitly stated that the concerns the AAO had 
raised , while not relevant to whether or not the petitioner in that case satisfied the criterion , were 
potentially relevant within the context of a final merits determination. Thus, the court recognized that 
evidence satisfying a given criterion might not, in fact, be indicative of national or international 
acclaim and may be evaluated as such in the final merits determination. First, the only evidence of 
judging as of the date of filing is a letter from Editor-in-Chief of 
', confirming that the petitioner had reviewed two manuscripts for that journal. The 
additional evidence an August 23, 2012 email from Associate Editor of 
states that the petitioner reviewed a manuscript. It is, however, unclear from the 
email or any other evidence in the record that the petitioner completed his review on or before June 26, 
2012, the date he filed his petition. As such, this document has no evidentiary value, because the 
petitioner must demonstrate eligibility for the visa petition at the time of filing. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 
103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
Second, while the petitioner's evidence documents that he reviewed two manuscripts as of the date of 
filing, it appears that many researchers, including his references, serve as reviewers for papers and 
journals. Scientific journals are peer reviewed and rely on many scientists to review submitted articles. 
Thus, peer review is · routine in the field; not every peer reviewer enjoys international recognition. 
Without evidence that sets the petitioner apart from others in his field , such as evidence that he has 
reviewed manuscripts for a journal that credits a small, elite group of referees , received independent 
requests from a substantial number of journals, or served in an editorial position for a distinguished 
journal, the petitioner cannot establish· that his judging experience is indicative of or consistent with 
(b)(6)
Page 14 
national or international recognition. Notably, Professor is the Editor-in-Chief of 
The evidence shows that the level of the petitioner's participation as a judge does not 
match some of his references. 
With regard to the original contributions of maJor significance criterion under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v), as discussed above, the petitioner has not satisfied this criterion. See section 
203(b)(1)(A) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 
Ultimately, the content of the letters submitted under this criterion not only fail to demonstrate that the 
petitioner has already made contributions of major significance in the field of neurobiology, they also 
mostly speculate as to his future potential acclaim. In addition, as supporting evidence of his 
contributions,_ the petitioner has provided a February 2012 press release from _ 
This document, along with other ~vidence, shows that although the petitioner participated In the 
research study that resulted in the publication of 
Professor , not the petitioner, led the research study. Specifically, although in the press 
release, Professor name was 
mentioned several times in quotes from experts in the field, 
other than listing the petitioner's name as one of three authors of the article, the press release does not 
specifically mention the petitioner nor his specific contributions as relating to the article or research 
study. 
With regard to the authorship of scholarly articles criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), while the 
AAO affirms the director 's findings that the petitioner met this criterion, the evidence does not 
establish the petitioner's eligibility for the employment classification sought. See section 203(b)(l)(A) 
of the Act; 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. The record shows 
that the petitioner has authored a number of articles, including (1) an article entitled 
~ 
and (2) an 
article entitled ' 
' The petitioner, however, has not shown that either 
of these two articles has been published in a professional or major trade publication or other major 
media. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). Indeed, these articles appear to be unpublished manuscripts. 
According to the record and the petitioner's curriculum vitae, submitted in response to the director's 
RFE, the petitioner coauthored 10 articles and one book chapter. Based on the petitioner's evidence, 
however, it appears that many researchers, including his references, author scholarly articles. 
According to Professor his work "has led to 30 full publications in referred journals and 
books. " According to Professor he has "over 50 publications ... in prestigious journals 
including Science, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, Nature Medicine, Nature 
Genetics, Nature Neuroscience, Nature Reviews Neuroscience, Neuron, Journal of Neuroscience and 
Epilepsia." According to Professor he has "an extensive publication record (over 150 articles) 
which includes several highly cited articles in high profile journals such as New England Journal of 
Medicine, Lancet Neurology, Nature Reviews, Neurology, Nature Clinical Practice, Neurology, Annals 
of Neurology, American Journal of Httman Genetics, British Medical Journal, Epilepsia, and Epilepsy 
& Behavior." According to Professor he has "authored over 90 publicationS and 6 book 
chapters ." According to Professor he has "edited several books and published over 140 
(b)(6)
Page 15 
pubmed referenced scientific papers." The 
evidence shows that the level of the petitioner's publication 
of scholarly articles does not match many his references. 
Finally, the mere fact that the petitioner ' s citation rate may be above average, do·es not suggest that his 
publication record places him within the small percentage at the top of his field. 
With regard to the leading or critical role for organizations or establishments criterion under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii), as discussed above, the petitioner has not satisfied this criterion. See section 
203(b)(1)(A) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. The 
record lacks evidence that the petitioner has performed any role, let alone a leading or critical role, for 
any organization or establishment that has a distinguished reputation. Evidence relating to the 
petitioner's involvement in particular research studies does not qualify as performing any role for the 
organization or establishment that sponsored or supported the studies. The petitioner's position at the 
time of filing was as a post-doctoral research associate. Notably, the record contains letters from 
department chairs and the Vice President of the American Epilepsy Society. In short, the petitioner has 
not shown that his role in research studies is indicative of his being within the small percentage at the 
top of the field of neurobiology . , 
Ultimately, the record does not support counsel's claim on appeal that the petitioner is an alien of 
extraordinary ability in the field of neurobiology. 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 post-doctoral research associate, relies on his volunteer participation in the 
widespread review process, his publication record that has garnered above-average citations, and the 
praise of his peers. While this may distinguish him from other post-doctoral research associates, the AAO 
will not narrow his field to others with his level of training and experience. From a review of the record as 
a whole, it appears that the highest level of the petitioner's field is far above the level he has attained ·. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clear.ly demonstrate 
that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of his field of endeavor. 
A review of the evidence in the aggregate, 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 of neurobiology. 
The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set him significantly above almost all 
others in his field at a national or international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established his 
eligibility pursuant to section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely 
with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act; 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal, as relating to is dismissed.