dismissed EB-1A Case: Neuroscience

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave.. N.W.. Rm. A3042 
FILE: 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: OCT 0 'b 284% 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: ~rnmibant 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. $ 1 153(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. 
h& 
2~obert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative ~~pkals Office on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability in the 
sciences. The director determined 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 have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 4 204.5(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 a postdoctoral fellow. 
While neither the statute nor the regulation preclude an alien so early in his career from establishing eligibility, 
we will not narrow the petitioner's field to those just completing their Ph.D. studies. Rather, the petitioner must 
compare with the most experienced and renowned scientists in his 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 director stated: 
Merely meeting three of the ten categories of evidence suggested by regulation does not 
automatically establish the beneficiary's 'eligibility for the classification of "Alien of 
Extraordinary Ability." Determinations of eligibility are made on the basis of the quality and 
caliber of the evidence presented. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that meeting three criteria is sufficient and cites Buletini v. INS, 860 F. Supp. 1222 
(E.D. Mich. 1994). While we may not agree with the exact wording of the above statements, we do not read 
the director's decision as concluding that the petitioner was eligible under the regulations but that the petition 
was not approvable. First, the director did not deny thepetition despite finding that the petitioner meets three 
criteria. Rather, the director concluded that the petitioner did not meet any criteria. Moreover, a more 
rational interpretation of the director's decision is that a petitioner cannot merely submit documentation that 
relates to or addresses three criteria. In determining whether a petitioner meets a specific criterion, the 
evidence itself must be evaluated in terms of whether it is indicative of or consistent with sustained national 
or international acclaim. 
The petitioner has submitted evidence that, he claims, meets the following criteria.' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognizedprizes or awards for 
excellence in thejield of endeavor. 
Initially, counsel asserted that the beneficiary's research fellowships serve to meet this criterion. The director 
concluded that the petitioner had not provided evidence of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes 
or awards for excellence in the field. Cou.nsel does not challenge this conclusion on appeal and we find that a 
job offer, even if competitive, is not a prize or award recognizing excellence in one's field. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the Jield for which classijication is sought, 
which require outstanding achie,vements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international 
experts in their disciplines orjields. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of his regular membership in the Society for Neuroscience and his junior 
membership in the International Society for Neurochemistry (ISN). The letter from the Society for 
Neuroscience provides that their bylaws define members as "any scientific worker residing in Canada, Mexico, 
or the United States who has done meritorious research relating to the neurosciences." Applicants for regular 
membership must be nominated by two members and submit a curriculum vitae and bibliography. The letter 
reference emeritus members, suggesting a higher level than the level obtained by the petitioner. While the 
petitioner submitted the membership requirements for ISN, the petitioner is only a junior member of ISN. The 
petitioner did not submit the requirements for junior membership. 
The director concluded that the large number of members in the Society for Neuroscience and ISN suggests that 
neither requires outstanding achievements of their members. On appeal, counsel discusses the requirements for 
membership in both societies. 
1 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
Publication in the field and nominations from two of the hundreds of ,thousands of members of an association 
are not outstanding achievements. As stated above, 'the Society for Neuroscience has emeritus members, 
suggesting that the petitioner has not obtained the most prestigious level of membership in the society. Thus, we 
concur with the director that the Society for Neuroscience appears to be a professional rather than an exclusive 
society. Finally, as stated above, the petitioner is only a junior member of ISN. As such, we need not decide 
whether regular membership in ISN is sufficient as the petitioner is not a regular member. The record lacks 
evidence of the membership requirements for junior members. 
In light of the above, we concur with the director that the petitioner has not established 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 theJield for which classijication is sought. Such evidence shall include the 
title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
Initially, counsel asserted that citations serve to meet this criterion. The initial evidence, however, did not 
include any evidence of citations. The director noted that publication is inherent to the field of scientific 
research and concluded that the record contained "insufficient evidence that others have cited the [petiti~nwls] 
work to a degree that would be indicative of his claimed sustained national or international acclaim." 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the discussion of ,the petitioner's publication record is confusing and that the 
director failed to evaluate the citations submitted., The petitioner now submits evidence of articles that cite his 
work, the vast majority of which were published after the date of filing. A petitioner must establish eligibili~ as 
of that date. See 8 C.F.R. $ 103.2(b)(12); Matter of Katigbak; 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 (Comm. 197 1). 
Specifically, the petitioner now submits evidence that his October 1995 article in the European Journal of 
Clinical Chemistry and Clinical Biochemistry has been cited seven times, five of which were prior to the date of 
filing. Of the five citations prior to the date of filing, two are self-citations by coauthors. The petitioner's 
March 1999 article in the Journal of Neurochemistry has been cited 16 times, only eight of which precede the 
date of filing. The list of citations ends at 10, thus the record contains the bibliography of only two of the 
citations that precede the date of filing, both of which are self-citations by either the petitioner or a coauthor. Of 
the eight citations that postdate the date of filing,fiv-e are self-citations by a coauthor and a sixth is a citation by 
one of the petitioner's coauthors of a different article. The petitioner's 2000 article in the Journal of 
Neurochemistry has been cited nine times, five of which precede the date of filing. Of the five that precede the 
date of filing, three are self-citations by coauthors or the petitioner. The petitioner's 2002 article in the Naunyn- 
Schmiedebergs Archives of Pharmacology has also been cited nine times, only one of which predates the date of 
filing. Of the nine citations, six are by coauthors or the petitioner. While the petitioner also submitted evidence 
that his 2004 article in the Journal of Biological Chemistry has been cited twice, once by a coauthor, the 
petitioner's article itself postdates the date of filing. Thus, we can consider neither the article nor the citations. 
While self-citation is a normal and expected practice, self-citations are not indicative of national or international 
acclaim. The petitioner has not established that, as of the date of filing, more than three independent research 
teams had cited any one of his articles. Regardless, as consistently stated by this office, articles that cite the 
petitioner's work are about the author's own research, not the work cited in the footnotes. Thus, while citations 
are indicative of the influence of a given article and will be considered below, articles that cite the petitioner's 
work cannot meet the plain language requirements of this criterion, set forth at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
In light of the above, we concur with the director that the petitioner has not established that he meets this 
criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on apanel, as a judge of the work of others in the 
same or an allied$eld of specijication for which classijication is sought. 
Initially, counsel asserted that the petitioner met this criterion through his roles as a principal investigator, 
research scientist, research fellow and lecturer and instructor. Dr. E. A. Reith, the petitioner's 
collaborator at the University of Illinois at Chicago, asserts that the petitioner's teaching and instruction 
responsibilities at the Beijing University of Chinese Medicine serves to meet this criterion. The petitioner did 
not submit any reference letters from the Beijing University of Chinese Medicine describing the petitioner's 
responsibilities at that university. 
The director concluded that the record contained no evidence relating to this criterion beyond his current duties 
as a researcher. On appeal, counsel asserts for the first time that the petitioner has reviewed manuscripts for two 
Chinese journals. As this claim was not advanced previously, we cannot conclude that the director erred in 
failing to consider it. Counsel provides no explanation for not advancing this claim initially and the petitioner 
provides no evidence to support this new claim. 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 of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503,506 (BIA 1980). 
Regarding the petitioner's alleged teaching duties, the evidence submitted to meet each criterion must be 
indicative of or at least uniquely consistent with national or international acclaim. Duties that are inherent to 
every member of the profession are of limited evidentiary value in distinguishing the petitioner from others in 
the field. Every instructor evaluates the work of his students. Not every teacher, instructor or even full 
professor, however, enjoys national or international acclaim. Thus, the petitioner' teaching responsibilities are 
not persuasive. 
Finally, we cannot ignore that scientific journals are peer reviewed and rely on many scientists to review 
submitted articles. Thus, peer review is routine inethe field; not every peer reviewer enjoys sustained national or 
international acclaim. Without evidence that sets the petitioner apart from others in his field, such as evidence 
that he has reviewed an unusually large number of articles, received independent requests from a substantial 
number of journals, or served in an editorial position for a distinguished journal, we cannot conclude that the 
petitioner meets this criterion. 
In light of the above, we concur with the director that the petitioner has not demonstrated that he meets this 
criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientzjic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of 
major signiJicance in the$eld 
The petitioner submitted four reference letters in support of the petition in addition to his publication record. 
The director concluded that the record did not establish that the petitioner meets this criterion due to the fact 
that the reference letters were solicited and record lacked evidence distinguishing the petitioner's publication 
record. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the director ignored the citation evidence and that the petitioner's publication 
record adequately supports the reference letters. Counsel further asserts that the petitioner's articles were 
published in top ranked journals. Counsel then quotes from sevebal reference letters. The petitioner submits 
citation evidence and new reference letters. 
While letters from colleagues are important in explaining the petitioner's role in various projects, they 
cannot, by themselves, establish the petitioner's recognition beyond his immediate circle of colleagues. 
Moreover, letters containing mere assertions of widespread acclaim and vague claims of contributions are 
less persuasive than letters that specifically identify 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. Finally, as with 
letters from colleagues, independent letters identifying specific contributions and explaining how they have 
impacted the field are far more persuasive than letters providing general assertions of ability and acclaim. 
While Dr. asserts that the petitioner has "provided many significant contributions to the field of 
neurochemistry," his discussion of those contributions suggests that while the petitioner's work has potential, it 
has yet to impact the field in a significant way. Dr. first discusses the petitioner's area of research, 
cocaine addiction, and the potential for the petitioner's work to result in a drug to treat such addiction. 
Specifically, the petitioner's research focuses on the development of "a transport inhibitor that will control the 
activity of the dopamine neurotransmitter, reversing the chemical processes that cause addiction." Dr. = 
predicts that once the petitioner's work "is fully developed, it will be the basis for a novel drug to control the 
chemical imbalances that cause cocaine addiction." While we do not question the importance of this goal, Dr. 
does not identify a single specific accomplishment towards this goal. Regarding the petitioner's separate 
investigation of the function of sugars attached to the dopamine transporter, Dr. asserts that the petitioner 
"was the first to discover the unique effects sugar has on the dopamine transporter using a molecular mutation 
technique." Dr. then asserts that the petitioner has unique expertise with the use of sophisticated 
techniques. Dr. however, does not explain how the petitioner's sugar discovery and expertise with 
sophisticated techniques has influenced the field. 
Dr., Chief of the Clinical Psychopharmacology Section of the National Institute on Drug 
Abuse, National Institutes of Health, asserts that the petitioner's work has been groundbreaking and that the 
petitioner is one of the few neurochemists who advances the field. Dr. however, fails to support these 
general assertions with concrete examples of contributions and their proven influence in the field. For example, 
~r. asserts that the petitioner's discoveries are significant because they contribute to the development 
of a drug to treat addiction. Dr. then explains that the petitioner's investigation into the physiological 
effects of cocaine abuse "will enable researchers to develop inhibitors targeting the specific chemical reactions 
that cause addiction." This statement appears highly speculative, as it does not explain how results the 
petitioner has already achieved are currently being used in academia or the pharmaceutical industry to develop 
an addiction treatment. 
Chief of the Division of Neurcrscience at the - Research Center at 
niverslty, provides similarly vague and speculative assertions. For example, Dr. asserts that the P 
petitioner "was one of the first to discover potential inhibitors that v+ill stop the chemical process in the brain 
that causes addiction." (Emphasis added.) Dr. concludes that this research "is novel and original, as the 
inhibitors will be the basis for drugs to combat addiction." Dr. however, does not provide examples of 
the petitioner's results being used by academic institutions or .pharmaceutical companies. ~r.does not 
assert that his own laboratory has been influenced by the petitioner's work, although we note that the petitioner 
lists a one-year visiting researcher position at Emory on his curriculum vitae. 
~r. further asserts that the petitioner's work, such as his discovery regarding sugars, is important because 
it has enhanced our overall understanding of cocaine addiction. On appeal, Dr. discusses the petitioner's 
work with glutamate transporters, relevant to stroke, Alzheimer's, epilepsy, brain ischemia and amoyotrophic 
lateral sclerosis. Specifically, the petitioner "devised a method by which scientists can manipulate glutamate 
transporters, which are the means through which critical neurotransmitter activity is regulated." Dr. - 
provides similar information in his new letter submitted on appeal. Dr. asserts that this method is being 
used to develop new pharmacological approaches to treat those suffering from these conditions, but does not 
claim to be pursuing this work himself. Dr. fails to identify the research teams relying on the petitioner's 
work to development treatments for these conditions. 
Dr. a professor at Yale University, asserts that the petitioner is recognized worldwide for making 
some of the "latest" discoveries regarding cocaine addiction and that experts around the world "depend on [the 
petitioner] for his research accomplishments." Dr. does not claim to be impacted by the petitioner's 
work or provide any specific examples of research teams implementing the petitioner's results. On appeal, Dr. 
asserts that the petitioner has developed "a transport inhibitor that can control the activity of the 
dopamine neurotransmitter, thereby reversing the chemical processes that cause addiction." Dr. asserts 
that the petitioner is extending this work to develop a pharmaceutical treatment for cocaine abuse. Dr. 
basis for concluding that this work is a "definitive reference" in the field, however, is flawed. 
Specifically, he asserts that the petitioner's two articles in the Journal of Neurochemistry were cited 25 times. A 
cursory review of the citations, however, reveals overlap (some of the citing articles cite both of the petitioner's 
articles and cannot credibly be counted twice) and significant self-citation by the petitioner and his  coauthor^.^ 
Taking this information into account, the record only establishes that five articles by independent research 
groups cite one or both of the petitioner's articles in the Journal of Neurochemistry. Thus, Dr.- 
assertion that the petitioner's articles are definitive references in the field is not supported. 
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. 
See Walters v. Metro. Educ. Enters.,5 19 U.S. 202, 209 (1997); Bailey v. US., 5 16 U.S. 137, 145 (1995). 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. As discussed above, the petitioner's independent 
references do not claim to be influenced by the petitioner's work and, for the most part, provide little 
2 The exact overlap and self-citation cannot be determined as the petitioner only provided a list of 10 of the 
16 citations for one of the articles. 
explanation for how they know of the petitioner's work. While the record includes attestations of the 
potential impact of the petitioner's work, none of the petitioner's references provide examples of how the 
petitioner's work is already influencing the field. While the evidence demonstrates that the petitioner is a 
talented researcher with potential, it falls short of establishing that the petitioner had already made 
contributions of major significance. Thus, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the jeld, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major medta. 
On his curriculum vitae, the petitioner listed eight published articles and eight presentations. The petitioner 
submitted four published articles, four abstracts from conference presentations, evidence of another conference 
presentation and an unpublished manuscript. The Association of American Universities' Committee on 
Postdoctoral Education, on page 5 of its Report and Recommendations, March 31, 1998, set forth its 
recommended definition of a postdoctoral appointment. Among the factors included in this definition are the 
acknowledgement that "the appointment is viewed as preparatory for a full-time academic and/or research 
career," and that "the appointee has the freedom, and is expected, to publish the results of his or her research or 
scholarship during the period of the appointment." Thus, this national organization considers publication of 
one's work to be "expected," even among researchers who have not yet begun "a full-time academic andlor 
research career." This report reinforces our position that publication of scholarly articles is not automatically 
evidence of sustained acclaim. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that we should consider the prestige of the journals that accepted the petitioner's 
work for publication. Dr. Reith asserts that the petitioner's publication record is beyond that of an "up and 
coming scientist." First, the petitioner has not submitted evidence of the rankings for the journals that published 
the petitioner's work. Regardless, we typically will not infer the influence of an individual article from the 
journal in which it appeared. Rather, we must consider the research community's reaction to the actual article. 
On appeal, several references attest to the significance of the petitioner's citation record. The record does not 
support these attestations. As discussed above, the record establishes no more than three independent citations 
for any one of the petitioner's articles prior to the date of filing. Even if we considered the citations up until the 
time of appeal, the petitioner has established no more than six independent citations for any one article. This 
number of citations is not evidence that the petitioner's work is widely cited. Thus, we find that the petitioner 
has not established that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the displq of the alien's work in thejeld at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
The petitioner did not initially claim to meet this criterion and the director concluded that the record contained 
no evidence relating to it. On appeal, counsel claims for the first time that the petitioner does meet this criterion 
through his conference presentations. 
This criterion is not applicable to the petitioner's field, as is obvious from the plain language of the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. 3 204.5(h)(3)(viii). While the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 3 204.5(h)(4) allows the use of comparable 
evidence where a criterion is not readily applicable to the alien's field, we consistently hold that conference 
presentations are much more comparable to the publication of scholarly articles. The petitioner's conference 
presentations have been considered above. As such, no further discussion of his presentations is necessary 
under this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that 
have a distinguished reputation. 
Counsel initially asserted that the petitioner meets this criterion through his roles as a principal investigator for 
the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Illinois at Chicago, and the Beijing University of Chinese 
Medicine; as a research scientist at Emory University; as a research fellow at the Physiological Chemistry 
Institute of Tubingen University in Germany and as a lecturer and instructor at the Beijing University of Chinese 
Medicine. 
On his curriculum vitae, the petitioner indicated that he was currently a postdoctoral fellow at the University of 
Pennsylvania. From 1998 to 2002, he was a Ph.D. student at the University of Illinois at Chicago; for a few 
months in 1997, he was a visiting scholar at the University 'of Illinois College of Medicine in Peoria; from 1996 
to 1997, the petitioner was a visiting scholar at Emory University; for a few months in 1996, the petitioner was a 
visiting research fellow at Tubingen University; from 1994 to 1995, the petitioner was an "official exchange 
visiting scholar" at Zagreb University; and fioam 1984 to 1993, the petitioner was an instructor and research 
associate at the Beijing University ofChinese A Medicine. 
Dr. Reith asserts that the petitioner is the principa! investigator in a "ground-breaking" project at the University 
of Pennsylvania. Dr. Reith further attests to the importance of the petitioner's research at the University of 
Illinois, but does not explain how the petitioner's position at that institution constitutes a leading role for the 
institution as a whole. 
The director concluded that the petitioner's contributions were typical of a researcher. On appeal, counsel 
reiterates his initial claim regarding the petitioner's roles. We have already considered the petitioner's claims of 
contributions above. According to the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(ix), the two 
factors for consideration under this criterion are the reputation of the organization for which the petitioner 
worked and the nature of the position the petitioner was hired to fill. 
On appeal, counsel focuses on the distinguished reputation of the universities where the petitioner has worked. 
We do not contest those reputations, although thdgetitioner has provided little evidence to support these claims. 
Of more concern is the nature of the petitioner's~positions with these universities. The record contains little 
confirmation of the petitioner's position with any university prior to the University of Pennsylvania. Regardless, 
we cannot conclude that every instructor, visiting scholar or postdoctoral researcher who plays an important role 
in a distinguished university's laboratory plays a leading or critical role for the university as a whole. Thus, we 
find that the petitioner has not established that he keets this criterion. 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate that the 
alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage who has risen 
to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself as a neuroscience 
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 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.