dismissed EB-1A Case: Neuroscience

identieing data dedeted to 
pevent clearly unwammted 
&lV&m of &XTSO~U~~ priv8o)t 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: WAC 03 155 5 1123 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: ~14m 
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: 
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. 
5 Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 03 155 51 123 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, California Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals 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. 9 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability in the 
sciences. The director determined that the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international 
acclaim requisite to classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
(1) Priority Workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are aliens 
described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with Extraordinary Ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
Specific supporting evidence must accompany the petition to document the "sustained national or international 
acclaim" that the statute requires. 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3). An alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a "one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized 
award)." Id. Absent such an award, an alien can establish the necessary sustained acclaim by meeting at least 
three of ten other regulatory criteria. Id. However, the weight given to evidence submitted to fulfill the criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3), or under 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(4), must depend on the extent to which such evidence 
demonstrates, reflects, or is consistent with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the 
alien's field of endeavor. A lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory definition 
of "extraordinary ability" as "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. 9 204.5(h)(2). 
In this case, the petitioner seeks classification as an alien with extraordinary ability as a neuroscience researcher. 
The record shows that at the time of filing the petitioner was employed as a research scientist by AGY 
Therapeutics, Incorporated (AGY) in San Francisco. The petitioner initially submitted supporting materials 
including evidence of his academic credentials, service as a referee for one scientific journal in his field, 
contribution to two patent applications, membership in two professional associations, postdoctoral fellowship at 
Stanford University, six of his published articles, and six letters of recommendation written by individuals who 
have either worked with or are familiar with the petitioner's work. In response to the director's Request for 
Evidence (RFE), the petitioner submitted additional evidence relating to his research fellowship, membership in 
WAC 03 155 51123 
Page 3 
one association, review of manuscripts for one journal, information regarding journals that have published the 
petitioner's articles, citations to his work, a letter from his employer and two additional letters of 
recommendation. On appeal, counsel submits a two-page brief and no additional evidence. Counsel's 
contentions do not overcome the deficiencies of the petition and the appeal will be dismissed. We address the 
evidence submitted and counsel's claims in the following discussion of the regulatory criteria relevant to the 
petitioner's case. The petitioner does not claim eligibility under any criteria not discussed below. 
(i) Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards 
for excellence in theJield of endeavor. 
The petitioner claims to meet this criterion through his receipt of a Wellcome Trust International Research 
Fellowship (Wellcome Fellowship) in 1999. Graduate and postdoctoral fellowships do not meet this criterion 
because only students and recent graduates are eligible for and receive such assistance to continue their 
academic studies or receive research training. While they may be highly competitive and prestigious, 
postdoctoral fellowships are temporary positions served under the direction of more experienced scientists and 
thus only evidence the fellow's past academic achievements and future potential. 
In this case, the record contains no primary evidence of the petitioner's Wellcome Fellowship. However, six 
recommendation letters confirm that the petitioner received this fellowship. With his RFE response, the 
petitioner submitted a document entitled "Wellcome International Research Fellowships 2003," which states, 
"Candidates should note that this award is high profile and extremely competitive. It is envisaged that only 10 
to 15 awards will be made during any one year. . . . These fellowships are intended to provide further research 
experience for basic science or clinically qualified researchers in leading laboratories overseas." The document 
states that only candidates who have or will shortly obtain their doctoral or medical degree in the United 
Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland are eligible for the fellowship. The petitioner also submitted a printout of 
an electronic mail message from the Science Program Officer of the Wellcome Trust who states that "all grants 
are judged on scientific merit and the quality of the candidate." This letter does not state that the 2003 criteria 
were also in force in 1999 when the petitioner purportedly received his fellowship. 
The recommendation letters that discuss the petitioner's receipt of the Wellcome Fellowship indicate that it is 
limited to researchers at the beginning of their professional careers. of the National Institute of 
Neurological Disorders and Stroke at the National Institutes of Health and a former Wellcome Trust fellowship 
recipient, further explains that these fellowships "are highly regarded and sought after through [sic] their 
prestige and value for allowing research at the highest level. For scientists at the outset of their careers the 
Wellcome Trust International Traveling Research fellowship is the pinnacle of grants that can be awarded." 
rofessor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University School of 
Medicine and the petitioner's postdoctoral supervisor, explains that "[tlhis award is given to a very small 
number of young scientists and is regarded in the international scientific community as being a great recognition 
of the exceptional quality of the researcher." f Professor and Director of the Molecular 
Neurobiology Department at the Max-Planck Institute or Medical Research in Germany, states that the 
petitioner "has been awarded one of the most prestigious fellowships available to young postdoctoral scientists 
from the Wellcome Trust. These fellowships are awarded to a select few scientists after completion of their 
PhDs as recognition of their contributions to science during their studies and their future potential." = 
Professor of Neuroscience and Director of the MRC Centre for Synaptic Plasticity at the 
University of Bristol in the United Kingdom who worked with and co-authored publications with the petitioner 
during the petitioner's doctoral studies, states that he is on the awarding board ofthe Wellcome ~ellowihi~s and 
WAC 03 155 51 123 
Page 4 
that they "are recognized as being the most competitive and illustrious available for young researchers to 
undertake research outside of the Uk." ne~rofessor at the 
Child Studv Center of Yale University School of Medicine and a current collaborator of the petitioner, makes 
similar comments and- Professor of Physiology at the Institute of Medical ~liences within the 
University of Toronto, also affirms the prestige and competitiveness of this fellowship. 
While theseletters attest to the cachet of the petitioner's fellowship, they indicate that the Wellcome Fellowships 
are awarded to promising scientists at the beginning of their careers, not to leading scientists at the top of their 
fields. The petitioner's fellowship may indicate his exceptional promise as a researcher, but he must 
demonstrate that this honor is comparable to those won by scientists who have already achieved sustained 
national or international acclaim. The petitioner cannot restrict his field to exclude scientists who have long ago 
completed their advanced research training and therefore do not compete for postdoctoral fellowships. The 
record thus does not demonstrate that the petitioner's Wellcome Fellowship reflects the requisite sustained 
acclaim. Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
(ii) Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classzjication is sought, 
which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international 
experts in their disciplines or fields. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of his "ordinary" membership in The Biochemical Society and his 
membership in the Society for Neuroscjence (SFN). As evidence that these memberships meet this criterion, 
counsel cites the letter of ProTessor ho states, "[The petitioner] is a member of numerous societies, 
whose membership requirements are quite stringent. [His] membership in the Society for Neuroscience required 
his nomination by two current members of the organization. Similarly, as a member of the Biochemical Society 
[he] received sponsorship from three long-standing members of this organization." The record does not 
corroborate Professor tatements. With his RFE response, the petitioner submitted a printout from 
the website of SFN, which states, "Any scientist residing in the United States, Canada or Mexico, who has done 
meritorious research relating to the neurosciences is eligible to be a regular member." The printout does not 
define "meritorious research" or further describe the membership selection criteria. The record is devoid of any 
documentation from The Biochemical Society concerning its membership criteria. On appeal, counsel claims 
that the petitioner's SFN membership alone is "cause enough for classification as extraordinary ability." Yet the 
evidence submitted does not demonstrate that outstanding achievements are prerequisite to SF' membership. 
Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
(iii) Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media, 
relating to the alien's work in theJieId for which classzj?cation is sought. Such evidence shall include the 
title, date, and author of the iitaterial, and any necessary translation. 
As evidence of the petitioner's eligibility under this criterion, counsel initially cited two recommendation letters 
that discuss his publications and one letter that confirms his review of manuscripts for the Journal of 
Neuropharmacology. On appeal, counsel does not claim that the petitioner meets this criterion. However, we 
note that published articles written by an alien are not published materials about the alien or his work. 
Similarly, manuscripts reviewed by an alien are not published materials about the alien. The record contains no 
evidence of published materials about the petitioner and his work. Accordingly, he does not meet this criterion. 
WAC 03 155 51123 
Page 5 
(iv) Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others 
in the same or an alliedfield of speczjication for which classijication is sought. 
The petitioner claims to meet this criterion because he has been a reviewer for one scientific journal in his field. 
We cannot ignore that peer review of manuscripts is intrinsic to the editorial process of many scientific journals 
and that established research scientists often serve as referees for various journals in their field. Because duties 
or activities which nominally fall under a given regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3) do not 
demonstrate national or international acclaim if they are inherent or routine in the occupation itself, a scientist 
will not meet this criterion unless he or she has completed a significantly large number of reviews, served on the 
editorial board of journals in his or her field, or has otherwise judged the work of other scientists in a manner 
reflective of the requisite sustained acclaim. 
In this case, the petitioner initially submitted a letter from an editorial assistant of Neuropharmacology 
confirming that he had reviewed manuscripts submitted for publication to the journal. With his WE response, 
the petitioner submitted a second letter from Professor who is the editor in chief of this journal. 
professor explains that publication in Neurop w armaco ogy requires peer review and "reviewers 
who have demonstrated exceptional contributions to the field and whose unique knowledge places them as the 
only experts who can judge the significance and quality of the papers submitted for publication." Professor 
- states that the petitioner was selected as a reviewer due to his "unique insights and knowledge in 
the field of neuropharmacology and in particular the roles and regulation of glutamate receptors [as 
demonstrated by] his extensive publication record at a high level and his many presentations and interactions at 
the premier scientific meetings in this field." Professor also notes that the petitioner wrote a review 
article that was published in Neuropharmacology in 2000 and that articles reviewed by the petitioner have been 
published and were well received and highly cited. The record also contains evidence that Neuropharmacology 
has an impact factor of 3.801, an immediacy index of 0.525 and a cited half-life of 5.6 years. 
Professor letter indicates that the petitioner has valuable expertise in his field, but it does not 
demonstrate his eligibility under this criterion. Professor does not state how many reviews the 
petitioner completed for Neuropharmacology or the dates of his reviews. The record also contains a printout of 
an electronic message requesting the petitioner's review of a manuscript for the Journal of Neurochemistry, but 
no evidence that the petitioner actually completed the requested review. The petitioner submitted no evidence 
that he has reviewed manuscripts for any other journals, served on the editorial board of any journals in his field, 
or has otherwise judged the work of other scientists in a manner reflective of the requisite sustained acclaim. 
Accordingly, he does not meet this criterion. 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientiJic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of 
major signzjicance in the field. 
As evidence of the petitioner's eligibility under this criterion, counsel references the submitted recommendation 
letters. While such letters provide relevant information about an alien's experience and accomplishments, 
they cannot by themselves establish the alien's eligibility under this criterion because they do not 
demonstrate that the alien's work is of major significance in his or her field beyond the limited number of 
individuals with whom he or she has worked directly. Even when written by independent experts, letters 
solicited by an alien in support of an immigration petition carry less weight than preexisting, independent 
evidence of major contributions that one would expect of an alien who has achieved sustained national or 
WAC 03 155 51123 
Page 6 
international acclaim. Accordingly, we review the letters as they relate to other evidence of the petitioner's 
contributions. 
~rofessorex~lains that the petitioner's doctoral research "focused on the role of a subclass of 
receptors for glutamate, the most common excitatory neurotransmitter in the brain, so called kainite receptors. . . 
. [His] workhas been recognized by its publication in major scientific journals and through presentation at 
major scientific meetings both in Europe and the US4. Three years after the completion of his PhD studies, 
work emanating from his discoveries is still being continued at the University of Bristol." The etitioner's 
curriculum vitae includes nine publications co-authored by the petitioner that either list Professor 1, 
as the last author or concern kainite receptors. The record is devoid of any evidence of seven of these purported 
publications. Simply going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient to meet the 
burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffi, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of 
Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). The record includes copies of two of these 
articles, the first of which was published in Trends in Pharmacologic-a1 Sciences in 1999. The petitioner 
submitted a Web of Science printout showing that at the time of filing, this article had been cited 96 times by 
other research teams. The second article was published in Neuron in 2003 shortly before the petition was filed. 
While several letters state that the petitioner presented his work in this area at scientific meetings, the record 
contains no copies of the petitioner's conference abstracts or other corroborative evidence of his participation at 
any meetings or conferences in his field. 
Professor states that during the petitioner's postdoctoral fellowship in his laboratory, the petitioner 
"examined the molecular mechanisms underlying receptor functioning and the plasticity of synaptic 
transmission . . . . He has made important contributions to our understanding of synaptic processes through 
taking a molecular approach to the study of brain functioning." ~rofesso- affirms that the petitioner's 
investigation of "AMPA receptor regulation . . . . produced highly significant findings that explain how the 
trafficking of these receptors is both controlled and regulated by interaction with intracellular proteins. These 
findings produce a great potential for understanding the basis of normal brain function and the dysfunction that 
leads to disorders such as depression and neurodegeneration." Professor also affirms that the 
petitioner's work has "profound implications for how memory formation can be controlled in the brain." The 
petitioner is the lead author of an article concerning his postdoctoral research that was published in the 
Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences in 2002 and entitled, "Differential Roles for NSF and 
GRIPIABP in AMPA Receptor Cycling." At the time of filing, the record shows that this article had been cited 
three times in the publications of other research teams. Professo-tates that "[tlhis publication alone 
has brought to the fore a new area of research in that such receptors are highly dynamic and their regulation is 
under tight cellular control." 
~rofessorlso notes that the petitioner's invitation to write a review article concerning research in 
this area, the article's publication in the "high level" journal Neuropharmacology and its "impressive discussion 
of the field are testament to his knowledge, judgment and contributions to this important field of research." The 
record contains a copy of this article, of which the petitioner is the lead author that was published in 2000 in 
Neziropharmacology. The submitted Web of Science printouts show that at the time of filing, this article had 
been cited 3 1 times by other research teams. Professor of Physiology at the University of 
Toronto, and Director and Research Advisor in the Neuroscience Division om and 
Company, Limited, who worked with the petitioner during the petitioner's graduate studies, also affirm the 
significance of the petitioner's work in these areas. 
WAC 03 155 51123 
Page 7 
The record indicates that at the conclusion of the petitioner's postdoctoral fellowship, he began working as a 
research scientist at AGY. Fbfessor- explains that he is collaborating with the petitioner on work 
initiated by the petitioner that "identified the protein known as striatal-enriched tyrosine phosphatase (STEP) as 
a potential target to develop drugs against which would be used in treatment of memory disorders." Professor 
Salter states that the petitioner is "making a project focused on the pharmacological development of drugs that 
can be used to treat dis~rders such as depression, stroke and neurodegeneration and thus are of exce tional 
value." professor-s the potential value of the petitioner's recent research. A letter from- 
patent Liaison for AGY, confirms that the petitioner "has been an instrumental inventor on two pending 
patent applications which have been filed with the USPTO." Yet the record contains no copies or other 
documentation of these patent applications. Moreover, even if these patents had been awarded (not simply 
applied for) prior to filing, they alone would not meet this criterion. To establish eligibility under this category 
by virtue of patents, a petitioner must not only show that his work has been granted a patent, but that the 
patented invention constitutes a scientific contribution of major significance in his field. The significance of a 
patented invention must be determined on a case-by-case basis. See Matter of New York State Dep 't. of Transp., 
22 I&N Dec. 215,221 n.7 (Comm. 1998). 
The record indicates that the petitioner's work is highly valued by the authors of his recommendation letters and 
that he is the lead author of an article published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences and 
a review article published in Neuropharmacology. However, the record does not fully document the major 
significance of the petitioner's work to his field as assessed by the recommendation letters. Apart from five 
articles, the record does not document the other publications listed on his curriculum vitae or the petitioner's 
presentation of his work at scientific conferences in his field. The record contains no other evidence that the 
petitioner's work has been recognized by scientists, apart from his recommenders, as making major 
contributions to his field in a manner consistent with the requisite sustained acclaim. Accordingly, the petitioner 
does not meet this criterion. 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the Jield, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
Frequent publication of research findings is inherent to success as an established scientist and does not 
necessarily indicate the sustained acclaim requisite to classification as an alien with extraordinary ability. 
Evidence of publications must be accompanied by documentation of consistent citation by independent 
researchers or other proof that the alien's publications have had a significant impact in his or her field. 
In this case, the record contains copies of five articles co-authored by the petitioner and published in reputable 
journals in his field between 1999 and 2003. The record shows that the petitioner's first co-authored article, 
"Kainate Receptors: Subunits, Synaptic Localization and Function," published in 1999 in Trends in 
Pharmacological Sciences had been cited 96 times in the publications of other researchers at the time the 
petition was filed. The petitioner's second co-authored article, "PICK1 Interacts with and Regulates PKC 
Phosphorylation of mGluR7," published in 2000 in the Journal of Neuroscience, had been cited 31 times by 
other research teams at the time of filing. The review article of which the petitioner is the lead author, 
"Interactions Between AMPA Receptors and Intracellular Proteins," published in 2000 in Neuropharmacology 
had also been cited 3 1 times by other researchers at the time of filing. The petitioner is the first author of a 
fourth article, "Differential Roles of NSF and GRIPIABP in AMPA Receptor Cycling," that was published in 
the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2002 and had been cited three times by other research 
teams at the time of filing. The petitioner's fifth co-authored article, "Rapid and Differential Regulation of 
WAC 03 155 51123 
Page 8 
AMPA and Kainate Receptors at Hippocampal Mossy Fibre Synapses by PICK1 and GRIP," was published in 
Neuron two months before the petition was filed. In his RFE response, the petitioner submitted evidence of 
numerous, more recent citations to these articles, but we cannot consider this evidence because it arose after the 
petition was filed. The petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing; a petition cannot be approved at 
a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See 8 C.F.R. $ 103.2(b)(12), Matter 
of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45'49 (Comm. 197 1). 
The petitioner submitted evidence of the impact factor, immediacy index and cited half-life of each of the 
journals that has published his work. In addition, Professor Collingridge's letter submitted with the petition 
confirms that the petitioner was invited to write a review article on glutamate receptors for Neuropharmacology. 
The caliber of several of the journals that have published the petitioner's work; his lead authorship of two 
articles, one of which is an invited review article and the other of which was published in the Proceedings of the 
National Academy of Sciences; and the wide citation of three of his articles by independent researchers provide 
sufficient evidence that the petitioner's publications have made a significant impact in his field in a manner 
consistent with the requisite sustained acclaim. Accordingly, the petitioner meets this criterion. 
An immigrant visa will be granted to an alien under section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1153(b)(l)(A), 
only if the alien can establish extraordinary ability through extensive documentation of sustained national or 
international acclaim demonstrating that the alien has risen to the very top of his or her field. The evidence in 
this case indicates that, at the time of filing, the petitioner was a neuroscience researcher of great promise who 
had published scholarly articles in distinguished scientific journals in his field. However, the record does not 
establish that the petitioner had achieved sustained national or international acclaim as a neuroscientist placing 
him at the very top of his field at the time of filing. He is thus ineligible for classification as an alien with 
extraordinary ability pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1153(b)(l)(A), and his 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. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.