dismissed EB-1A Case: Neuroscience

U.S. Departnlent of Elomeland Security 
U.S. Citizenshir, and Immigration Services 
identi@ing dm deleted to 
 Office ~f~dmln~strat~~~ ~Geals MS 2090 
Wash~ngton, DC 20529-2090 
prevent clearly unwanranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
 U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
PUBLIC copy 
6 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: D(IAy 2 9 2009 
LIN 07 062 52772 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned 
to the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to 
have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 
fj 103.5 for the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided 
your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be 
filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 
9 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
L) 
mhn F. Grissom 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
Nebraska Service Center. The petition is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
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. tj 1153(b)(l)(A), as an 
alien of extraordinary ability in the sciences. 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. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority Workers. - Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified 
immigrants who are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) 
through (C): 
(A) Aliens with Extraordinary Ability. - An alien is described in this 
subparagraph if - 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, 
business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national 
or international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized 
in the field through extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area 
of extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry to the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
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 has risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The specific requirements for supporting documents to 
establish that an alien has sustained national or international acclaim and recognition in his or her 
field of expertise are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria 
will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that he 
has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as research 
neuroscientist. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish 
sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a 
major, internationally recognized award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the 
regulation outlines ten criteria, at least three of which must be satisfied for an alien to establish 
the sustained acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
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. 
With the petition, the petitioner submitted a copy of a January 19, 1994 letter fiom the 
International Brain Research Organization (IBRO) Fellowship Committee, informing the 
petitioner that the committee had selected his application for a fellowship and that the final 
decision would be made by the national organization. The petitioner submitted no other 
documentation concerning the IBRO, that he received the fellowship or that receipt of a 
fellowship fiom the IBRO constitutes a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award 
for excellence in his field of endeavor. 
In response to the director's request for evidence (RFE) dated January 31, 2008, the petitioner 
stated: 
The IBRO Fellowship award is made annually to select outstanding, high-quality 
neuroscientists fiom diverse geographic and scientific areas around the world. 
The fellowship serves to encourage and reward works of merit and to ensure that 
such endeavors in neuroscience reach a wider audience outside their country of 
origin. 
The petitioner also submitted a February 19,2008 letter from an assistant 
professor of psychology at Morehouse College. 
 stated: 
The IBRO fellowship award is a highly prestigious award, awarded annually to 
outstanding neuroscientist whose contribution to the objectives of IBRO are 
remarkable, and extraordinary. [The petitioner] was selected by the IBRO, and the 
National Committee of the Czech Neuroscience Society on the strength of the 
impact of his contributions while a lecturer at the College of Medicine, Abia State 
University, Nigeria. 
The petitioner has never established that he was finally selected for the IRE30 Fellowship. 
Further, the petitioner submitted no documentation to corroborate any of the statements 
regarding the prominence of the IBRO Fellowship. Going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure 
Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). The petitioner provided no 
documentation to establish that the IBRO Fellowship is a nationally or internationally recognized 
prize or award of excellence in his field of endeavor. 
--- 
1 
The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
The petitioner also indicated that he was awarded an IBROIFENS travel award. However, he 
submitted no documentation regarding this award. 
The petitioner failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the jield for which 
classzfication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines orfields. 
To demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, the petitioner must show 
that the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for admission to 
membership. Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a given field, 
minimum education or work experience, standardized test scores, grade point average, 
recommendations by colleagues or current members, or payment of dues do not satisfy this 
criterion as such requirements do not constitute outstanding achievements. The overall prestige 
of a given association is not determinative. The issue is membership requirements rather than the 
association's overall reputation. 
The petitioner's curriculum vitae indicates that he holds membership in the following 
organizations: the IBRO, Czech Neuroscience Society, Federation of European Neuroscience 
Societies (FENS), and Society for Neuroscience (SFN) and Anatomical Society of Nigeria. The 
petitioner submitted a copy of a July 6, 2005 e-mail congratulating him on approval of his 
application for regular membership status in the SFN and a November 2005 member identity 
card for the 35th annual meeting of the SFN. The petitioner, however, submitted no 
documentation about the membership requirements of the organization. He also submitted 
identity cards for FENS 2002 and a satellite symposium for IBRO. Neither of these cards 
indicate that the petitioner was a member of the organization and he provided no documentation 
regarding the membership requirements. 
In response to the RFE, the petitioner emphasized that he was a "regular" member of the SFN 
and stated that the organization was an affiliate of the IBRO. He further stated that to be admitted 
for regular membership, "a neuroscientist [must have] earned [an] advanced university degree; 
with proven commitment to outstanding diligence in neuroscience as reflected in hiher 
curriculum vitae and bibliography and must be sponsored by at least two regular members or 
members emeritus." stated that regular membership in SFN "is only possible for 
accomplished neuroscientists as evidenced in their publication records and in the bibliography." 
The petitioner, however, did not provide any information from SFN or the IBRO to corroborate 
his statements or those of. Id. 
On appeal, counsel states: 
We concede that plain membership alone in [the IBRO and SFN] does not require 
outstanding achievement in neuroscience. However, [the petitioner's] 
participation in this organization was not ordinary as, in addition to his published 
Page 5 
research, he made no less than seven presentations to the [SFN] (and its European 
affiliates) in seven years. We know of no organization in the neuroscience field 
that would necessarily confer selective status just by membership. [Emphasis in 
original.] 
Counsel's argument is without merit. The petitioner submitted no documentation from the IBRO 
or the SFN that outlines the membership requirements for the organization. No evidence 
distinguishes a "plain" member from a "regular" member, and the petitioner submitted no 
documentation to indicate that a member is required to perform any specific service for the 
organization as a condition of membership. 
The petitioner has failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
Published materials about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classzJication is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary 
translation. 
In response to the RFE, the petitioner appears to assert that his peer-reviewed publications are 
evidence that he meets this criterion. In order to meet this criterion, published materials must be 
primarily about the petitioner and be printed in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media. To qualify as major media, the publication should have significant national 
distribution and be published in a predominant language. Some newspapers, such as the New 
York Times, nominally serve a particular locality but would qualify as major media because of a 
significant national distribution. 
It is the nature of research to build upon work that has gone before. In some instances, prior work 
is expanded upon or supported. In others, prior work is superseded by the findings of current 
research. In either case, the current researcher normally cites the work of prior researchers. 
Clearly this is not the same thing as published material written about an individual's work in the 
field. While in a general sense, the articles discuss the merits of the petitioner's work, the merits 
are addressed only as it is relative to that author's own research. Citations do not discuss the 
individual's standing in the field or any significant impact that his work has had on work in the 
field. Citations of the petitioner's work will be addressed under a separate criterion. 
The petitioner has not established that he has been the subject of published material that meets 
this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the 
work of others in the same or an allied field of speczfication for which classzfication is 
sought. 
In response to the RFE, the petitioner stated that in 2004, he was the guest speaker at the 
SUMMA'S Healthcare in Progress program. The petitioner did not show how being a guest 
speaker is the same as being a judge of the work of others, and therefore evidence of this 
criterion. 
The petitioner has failed to establish 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. 
With the petition, the petitioner submitted copies of six articles on which he had served as co- 
author and which were published in Physiological Research, NeuroReport, the European 
Journal of Neuroscience, The Journal of Comparative Neurology, and the Orient Journal of 
Medicine. The petitioner also submitted documentation indicating that he was co-author of a 
chapter in a book, Plasticity and Signal Representation in the Auditory System, and copies of two 
abstracts that he presented at conferences. 
Duties or activities which nominally fall under a given regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) do not demonstrate national or international acclaim if they are inherent or routine 
in the occupation itself. As frequent publication of research findings is inherent to success as an 
established research scientist, publications alone do not necessarily indicate the sustained 
acclaim requisite to classification as an alien with extraordinary ability. We must consider the 
research community's reaction to those articles. 
The petitioner submitted 18 articles by others that cited his work. This number of citations is not 
evidence that the petitioner's work is widely cited. On appeal, counsel attempts to explain the 
"importance of the reliance" of others on the petitioner's work. However, while counsel 
summarizes the documents and places his interpretation on the findings, the petitioner submitted 
no documentation to corroborate counsel's conclusions as to the significance of citations to his 
work. Without documentary evidence to support the claim, the assertions of counsel will not 
satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute 
evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 
I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Matter ofRamirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). 
The petitioner has failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
To meet this criterion, the petitioner must show that he performed a leading or critical role for an 
organization or establishment and that the organization or establishment has a distinguished 
reputation. 
The petitioner did not initially allege that he meets this criterion. However, on appeal, counsel 
asserts: 
[The petitioner] has had a leading role in IBRO and its related Societies for 
Neuroscience by making consistent presentations of crucially reviewed research. 
The purpose of these organizations is to give qualified scientists the opportunity 
to present research to each other. Petitioner, together with his various colleagues, 
has been extraordinarily active in doing that and has, as a result a leading role in 
the organization. 
The petitioner's curriculum vitae includes a list of "selected international conferences" at which 
he indicates he presented abstracts of his work. Counsel states that these abstracts were 
"significant" and presented by the petitioner on behalf of the IBRO. The petitioner submitted a 
copy of an April 10, 2000 letter from FENS inviting him to the 2000 meeting and informing him 
that his abstract "Changes in the Activity of Neurones in the Inferior Colliculus After Auditory 
Cortex Ablation of the Rat" had been accepted for presentation at the meeting. The petitioner 
submitted no documentation to corroborate any presentations that he made at other meetings or 
conferences. The record contains no evidence to support counsel's statements that this 
presentation at FENS was made on behalf of the IBRO or that it was a "significant" contribution 
to the meeting. Counsel's unsupported statements are not evidence. Id. 
Additionally, the petitioner provided no evidence that any presentations that he may have made 
on behalf of IBRO were in a critical role for the organization. It does not necessarily follow that 
the number of presentations is proportional to the petitioner's status in the organization. Further, 
there is no evidence of how the petitioner's presentations compared with others in the 
organization. 
The petitioner has failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(4) states: "lfthe above standards do not readily apply to 
the beneficiary's occupation, the petitioner may submit comparable evidence to establish the 
beneficiary's eligibility." [Emphasis added]. Counsel asserts that "in evaluating whether a 
researcher has had on other scientists, specifically, the degree to which his research is relied on 
by other scientists in the field, and that this is "comparable to the provisions in 8 C.F.R. 5 
204.5(i)(C) applicable to academics. 
The regulatory language precludes the consideration of comparable evidence in this case, as 
there is no indication that eligibility for visa preference in the petitioner's occupation cannot be 
established by the ten criteria specified by the regulation. However, we will briefly address 
counsel's argument under this provision. 
Counsel asserts: 
Here the record reflects that [the petitioner's] work has influenced other scientists 
particularly in the field of auditory nerve system functioning. This, we suggest, is 
distinct from the mere publication of work in "professional or major trade 
Page 8 
publications or other major media" . . . It demonstrates influence in the field and 
not just intelligence or journeyman type research. 
Despite counsel's assertion, however, the record does not establish that the petitioner has had an 
influence on other scientists and counsel does not point to any evidence of this influence by the 
petitioner. 
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 her field of endeavor. 
Review of the record, however, 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. Therefore, 
the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the 
petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 
of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the 
appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.