dismissed EB-1A Case: Neuroscience

PUBLIC COPY 
US. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W.. Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
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 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 
@ office that originally decided your case. *& further inquiry must be made to that office. 
U 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in the sciences, pursuant to 
section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1 153(b)(l)(A). The 
director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim 
necessary to qualifl for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief and new evidence. For the reasons discussed below, we do not find 
that the petitioner has overcome the director's bases for denial. 
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. 5 204.5(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 she 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 research assistant 
professor. On appeal, counsel notes that the petitioner is not a postdoctoral researcher, but holds a 
faculty rank. While this position demonstrates more experience than a postdoctoral researcher, it does 
Page 3 
not follow that every research assistant professor is nationally or internationally acclaimed. We will 
consider this position below as it relates to the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 4 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $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). Baning 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, she claims, meets the 
following criteria.' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awarh for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner initially submitted (1) a 1995 "Certificate of Honor" from the Chinese Neuroscience 
Society documenting her "Nomination Award of  ems science Scholarship" based 
on her thesis, (2) a 1997 Science and Technology Award of Chongqing City from the People's 
Government of the Municipality of Chongqing City and (3) a 1992 "Award Certificate" confirming that 
the petitioner's thesis was awarded as a "Sichuan Province Outstanding Youth Scientific and 
Technologic Thesis." In the request for additional evidence, the director noted that the awards were in 
recognition of student work or local. 
In response, counsel asserted, with no explanation, that the petitioner won both provincial and national 
awards, citing her award from the Chongqing Municipality and the Chinese Neuroscience Society. The 
unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Ohigbena, 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). Subsequently, counsel asserted that Appendix D contains an "explanation 
of two of [the petitioner's] awards." Appendix D includes an unsigned and un-credited statement 
discussing the size of Chongqing Municipality and asserting that the Chinese Neuroscience Society is a 
national organization and that "more than a hundred young scientists in neuroscience field from all over 
the counhy" competed for a prize given to only two winners. 
The director concluded that the explanation was the petitioner's own statement but accepted the 
information in that statement. The director fhther concluded that the statement did not contradict the 
director's initial finding that the Chongqing Municipality award was provincial and dismissed the 
award from the Chinese Neuroscience Society as it was based on academic study and was not open to 
the most experienced experts in the field. 
On appeal, counsel acknowledges that the explanation of the awards is from the petitioner herself. He 
asserts that scholarships at the national level should serve to meet this criterion and asserts that 
I 
 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
provincial awards from China have as large a pool of competitors as national awards in small European 
countries. Counsel requests that the regulations not be interpreted literally. 
It is the petitioner's burden to meet every element of a given criterion. Thus, it is the petitioner's 
burden to establish not only that she won an award but that the award is nationally or internationally 
recognized. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not suf5cient for purposes of 
meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sofici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 
1998) (citing Matter of Treasure CraJi of California, 14 I&N Dec, 190 (Reg. Cornm. 1972)). Without 
evidence that the information in the unsigned explanation, apparently compiled by the petitioner 
herself, comes from an official source, the document has little evidentiary value. 
Moreover, we concur with the director's reasoning and concIusion. We stress that the concern is not 
that the petitioner won the awards while a student, but that, as a scholarship based on student work, the 
competition was limited to other students. Without evidence that the most experienced and renowned 
experts in the field aspire to win these awards, we cannot conclude that they serve to meet this criterion. 
Regarding he provincial award, counsel provides no legal authority, and we known of none, for the 
proposition that awards hm larger countries need not be national level awards. The statutory standard 
is national or international acclaim regardless of the size of the country. In implementing this statute, 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) provides ten examples of evidence that might demonstrate such 
acclaim. Thus, the regulation requires that the award or prize be nationally or internationally 
recognized. The regulation as written is binding on us. While the petitioner's explanation discusses the 
size of Chongqing Municipality, neither she nor counsel asserts that the Science and Technology 
awards from this municipality are recognized outside Chongqing Municipality. Such an assertion 
would need to be supported by evidence of such recognition, such as wide coverage of the award 
selections in the national media or the media of several other municipalities. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classiJcation is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national 
or international experts in their disciplines orjields. 
The petitioner initially submitted evidence of her membership in the Society for Neuroscience (SFN). 
Citing the website of this society, the director noted in the request for additional evidence that the 
society has over 36,000 members and is open to basic researchers. Counsel no longer asserts that the 
petitioner meets this criterion and the evidence is not persuasive that SFN requires outstanding 
achievernits of its members. Thus, the petitioner has not established that she 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. 
Neither the petitioner nor counsel has asserted that the petitioner meets this criterion. The petitioner 
submitted an article in an unidentified newspaper discussing the expansion of the brain-imaging center 
at the University of New Mexico. The article does not mention the petitioner by name or identify any 
specific stroke research. Thus, the article cannot be considered to be about her relating to her work. 
Moreover, the petitioner has not established that the article appeared in a nationally circulated 
newspaper. Thus, the petitioner has not established that she 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 alliedfield of specification for which classrfication is sought. 
Neither the petitioner nor counsel has asserted that the petitioner meets this criterion and the record 
contains no evidence relating to it. 
Evidence of the alien S original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in thejield. 
The petitioner obtained her Ph.D. fiom Chongqing University in 1998. She served on the faculty there 
through 1998. From September 1998 through February 2001, the petitioner was a postdoctoral fellow 
at the University of Hong Kong. The petitioner has worked at the University of New Mexico since 
March 2001, first as a postdoctoral fellow and then as a research assistant professor. The petitioner 
submitted several reference letters and copies of her published articles and conference presentations. 
Most of the letters attest to the national interest inherent in the petitioner's work. We note that the 
statutory standard for the classification sought with this petition is national or international acclaim. 
The letters focus on the petitioner's researchon strokes conducted at the University of New Mexico in 
the laboratories o and this work had yet to 
be published, etitioner 
 no es a is ed the impact of this work 
outside of her immediate circle of colleagues. 
On appeal, counsel notes that the petitioner presented this work at a professional conference. Counsel 
further asserts that the petitioner is in a small field and, thus, the fop members of the field are familiar 
with one another. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) may, in its discretion, use as advisory 
opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 
79 1, 795 (Comm. 1988). However, CIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination 
regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters fiom experts 
supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; CIS may evaluate the content of 
those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795-796. CIS may even give 
less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated, in accord with other information or is in any way 
questionable. Id. at 795; See also Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing 
Matter of Treasure Craft of Calfornia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
In evaluating the reference letters, we note that letters containing mere assertions of contributions 
and important results 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 her reputation and 
who have applied her 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. 
The letters submitted initially mostly discuss the importance of the petitioner's area of research, 
praise the petitioner's skills, attest to her contributions to the understanding of 
strokes due to the breakdown of'the blood-brain barrier and assert that she is vital t 
projects. 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 from the 
scientific community. Any 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. None of the initial letters, 
including those from independent researchers who met the petitioner at a conference, explain how 
the petitioner's work has impacted the direction of stroke research or their own research. 
The most detailed lette-4 
evidence. According to 
lithium salt on rat brains- 
bn response to the director's request for additional 
ioner's Ph.D. research involved analgesia effects of 
Et it was this work, 
 hom 1995 to 1998, that won the 
Nomination Award in 1995. If true, it appears that the award was based on the promise of the 
proposal rather than the significance of the final results. At the University of Hong Kong, the 
petitioner's research involved cDNA microarray analysis of gene expression associated with motor 
neuron death after different spinal cord injuries. As of the date of filing the petition, this work had 
yet to be published. 
work at the University of New Mexico. 
 In the 
laboratory o 
 the petitioner used DNA microarray analysis to investigate 
regions during learning and memory in an animal 
model of alcoholism. 
 The results of this work demonstrated that the genes for proteosomal 
components are involved in memory consolidation in the brain. Once again, this work had yet to be 
published as of the date of filing the petition. 
Finally, in 
 laboratory, the petitioner focused on stroke research. - 
explains that stroke is very difficult to research because animal models are difficult to achieve. The 
petitioner created a unique Middle Cerebral Artery Occlusion (MCAO) in mice and rats, allowing 
her to discover that "the early opening of the blood brain bamer (BBB) induced by reperfusion afier 
60 minute MCAO in mouse and 90 minutes MCAO in rat is associated with matrix 
metalloproteinases-2 (MMP-2) and -9 (MMPs) and that the extent of proteolysis of tight junction 
.s determines the degree and duration ofthe leakiness of the BBB." 
the petitioner was the first person to describe this new mechanism at 
the early stages of the disruption of the BBB. while associate professor at the 
Universit of Hon Kon , asserts that this work aims to find a new target for drug therapies in stroke 
patients Mserts that the work's significance is that it strengthens the argument for 
using MMP inhibitors in the eatly treatment of stroke, "the only treatment for stroke approved by the 
, 
 [Food and Drug Administration (FDA)]." 
In a later sections that the petitioner's MCAO induced mice make it possible to 
study the roles of MMP-s, MMP-3 and MMP-9 as well as tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase-3 
(TIMP-3). The petitioner herself "found a new mechanism of edema caused by disruption of BBB 
after MCAO, which is a significant breakthrough in stroke research." The petitioner presented this 
work at a Society for Neuroscience Annual Meeting in 2004 and submitted it for publication in The 
Journal of Neuroscience f Director of the Biomedical Research and Integrative 
NeuroImaging Center at the University o New Mexico, asserts that this work "represents a 
significant advance on previous work in this field." 
The petitioner submitted a few e-mail messages designed to demonstrate the impact of her work. One 
e-mail chain is between the petitioner 
Another e-mail chain begins with a question 
 that he forwarded 
to the petitioner for a response. The final e-mail chain is from 
 the University of 
California, San Francisco, who met the 
 at SFN's 
2004 annual meeting, requesting detailsof the petitioner's p&tocol. The petitioner responds that she 
used a "ready-to-go" kit from Molecular Probes. With regard to the in situ zymography, the petitioner 
asserts that she "refered [sic] to several papers to make a protocoal [sic]." The petitioner attached the 
papers on which she relied in her response. This e-mail chain suggests that while the petitioner's 
results were original, as is true with all published research, she did not personally develop the protocol 
used to obtain these results. Rather, the petitioner's protocol follows hm the work of others to such an 
extent that she sent the articles on which she relied t-ithout embellishment. 
iscusses the petitioner's research at the time of filing, which involved working 
with T 
 asserts that any "breakthrough in this research 
would result in new avenues for stroke erapy, he does not identify any such breakthroughs in this 
area as of the date of filing. 
The letters submitted on appeal go beyond the claims in the previous letters. For example, two letters 
from faculty at the University of New Mexico discuss the petitioner's influence in other laboratories at 
the University of New Mexico. Specifically,an associate professor at the university's 
school of pharmacy, asserts that the petitioner's data "has helped us to design better pharmacological 
intervention stratenies to minimize the brain damage caused by stroke by providing vascular 
protection. associate professor at the university's school of medicine, 
asserts that the petitioner '%ill help my laboratory to establish the use of In Situ Zyrnography for our 
studies on stroke-induced neurogenesis." 
Page 8 
In addition,- a Canada Research Chair in Neuroimmunology at the University of 
Calgary, ass 
 a is 
 ra ory has "consulted [the petitioner] on a number of occasions in order to 
line in our studies of Multiple Sclerosis (and also spinal cord injury and 
brain tumors) 
 "instrumental" in the development of in situ 
the particular type of neural cell that expresses 
"many laboratories" in the United States are 
an associate professor in the Department of Oral 
Japan, asserts that the petitioner's work "has 
provided our research a novel approach to design better therapeutic strategies of cancer," such as oral 
squamous cell carcinomas. 
The petitioner's field, like most science, is research-driven, and there would be little point in 
publishing research that did not add to the general pool of knowledge in the field. According to the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not only original but of 
major significance. We must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, 
thus, that it has some meaning. To be considered a contribution of major significance in the field of 
science, it can be exp'ected 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 noted by the director, the record contains no evidence that the petitioner has 
been widely and frequently cited. Requests for reprints carry far less weight than citations as the 
requestor is only expressing an interest in the work and has yet to fully evaluate its usefulness. We 
acknowledge that the petitioner has now provided letters attesting to the petitioner's help in 
establishing protocols of New Mexico. As stated above, however, the 
petitioner's response to -mail strongly suggests that the petitioner's in-situ zyrnography 
is derived from the wo of the articles by those researchers is sufficient 
to use this procedure. While the evidence demonskates that the petitioner is a talented researcher 
with potential whose work is gaining national exposure, it falls short of establishing that the 
petitioner had already made contributions of major significance. Thus, the petitioner has not 
established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's authorship of scholarly articles in the jield, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of her authorship of eight published articles, seven abstracts and 
poster presentations at four conferences. The petitioner also submitted unpublished manuscripts. In the 
request for additional evidence, the director noted the lack of evidence that other researchers had relied 
upon or used the petitioner's work in their own research. The director requested evidence of citations. 
In response, counsel notes that the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(vi) does not explicitly require 
evidence of citation and postulates that some areas of research are so small that the work does not 
generate evidence of wide citation. Counsel asserts that so few scientists can perform microsurgery on 
mice, wide citation of the petitioner's work cannot be expected. The petitioner also submitted the e- 
mails discussed above. 
The director concluded that while the regulation may not explicitly require evidence of wide citation, 
the evidence submitted to meet a given criterion must be indicative of national or international acclaim. 
Thus, the community's reaction to the petitioner's published work is relevant. As the petitioner 
submitted no evidence of citation, the director concluded that the petitioner had not estabIished that she 
meets this criterion. 
On appeal, counsel reiterates his response to the director's request for additional evidence and asserts 
that the petitioner submitted letters fiom other researchers using her results and attesting to their impact. 
The petitioner submits two requests for reprints of the petitioner's poster presentations that postdate the 
filing of the petition. 
While the regulation does not explicitly require evidence of citation, the regulations are designed to 
cover several diffkrent fields in addition to the sciences. While publication of scholarly articles may not 
be inherent to the arts, we cannot ignore that publication is inherent to the field of research. The 
evidence submitted to meet a given criterion must be indicative of or consistent with national or 
international acclaim if that statutory standard is to have any meaning. The petitioner submits no 
evidence to support counsel's assertion that stroke research is so limited that wide citation is not 
expected. Such evidence might include low impact ratings for the top stroke journals or evidence that 
more experienced experts, such as Dr. Rosenberg, are not well cited. 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). 
As stated above, requests for reprints are not as persuasive as citations as the requestor is only 
expressing an interest in the work and has yet to rely upon it. The petitioner has not established that her 
publication record is indicative of or consistent with national or international acclaim. Even if we were 
to read this criterion as narrowly as counsel requests, the petitioner would meet only one criterion. An 
alien must meet at least three criteria to be eligible for this highly exclusive classification. For the 
reasons discussed above and below, the petitioner falls far short of meeting any other criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien 's work in thefield at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
This criterion does not relate to the petitioner's field. 
Evidence that the alien has peformed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
Several references attest to the petitioner's important or "kef' role in- laboratory and at 
COBRE, the University of New Mexico's integrative multimodal neuroimamng research facility. The 
petitioner submits an article in an unidentified-newspaper discussing the expansion of the university's 
brain imaging center, asserting that it will "help" make the university "a world leader in the study of 
mental illnesses." The petitioner also submitted grant applications identikng the petitioner as one of 
the "key personnel," although not a principal investigator or co-investigator. The director concluded 
that while the University of New Mexico obviously needed competent research assistant professors, not 
every research assistant professor can be said to play a leading or critical role for the university. 
On appeal, counsel quotes from reference letters attesting to the petitioner's unique abilities. Counsel 
fbrther asserts that the petitioner is a co-principal investigator on more than one grant. As stated above, 
however, the record does not support that assertion. Regardless, every researcher employed at a 
university is expected to bring in research dollars through grants in order to remain employed; not every 
principal investigator plays a leading or critical role for the university where she works. 
We have considered the petitioner's contributions while working at the University of Mexico above. 
At issue for this criterion is the role the petitioner was hired to perform and the reputation of the entity 
that hired her. The petitioner is a research assistant professor. We cannot conclude that this position is 
leading or critical role for the University of New Mexico as a whole or even the department in which 
she works. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signzjkantly high remuneration for 
services, in relation to others in the field. 
Neither the petitioner nor counsel has asserted that the petitioner meets this criterion and the record 
contains no evidence relating to it. 
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing am, as shown by box ofice receipts or record, 
cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
This criterion does not relate to the petitioner's field. 
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 herself as a 
researcher to such an extent that she may be said to have achieved sustained national or international 
acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the very top of her field. The evidence indicates that the 
petitioner shows talent as a research assistant professor, but is not persuasive that the petitioner's 
achievements set her significantly above almost all others in her 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.