dismissed EB-1A Case: Neuroscience

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
FILE: 
L:.S. 1)epartmcnt of Hornclanti Security 
I1.S. Citi~ei~sliip ;anil Imjnigmtion Service, 
Adm~nlslfiiiivc i\lilicals Office [Ah(?) 
20 LI:ii~;ichusclrs .2vc.. NW. MS l(i')O 
, , 
Wasliti,elon. I)C 30529~20'10 
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. 9: 1 153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. 
 All of the 
documents related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please 
be advised that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. 
The specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. g: 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form 1-2908, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. $ 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires that any motion must 
be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
U&&~L 
Perry Rhew 
'\L Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 5 
11. Analysis 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
According to the petitioner's initial statement, this petition, filed on November 2, 2009, seeks to 
classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability in the field of neuroscience. The 
petitioner received his Ph.D. in Neuroscience from in 
2005. At the time of filing, the petitioner was working a postdoctoral research fellow at the 
categories of evidence under 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3).' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awardsfor excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted a letter indicating that he received a loan scholarship for the 
year 1998-99"; a 1998 Graduate Aptitude Test in Engineering Score Card reflecting a second 
position ranking; a "Rank Certificate" for the First Year Bachelor of Pharmacy student 
examination (1995) at the indicating that his test results ranked first among 
his classmates; a "Rank Certificate" for the Second Year Bachelor of Pharmacy student 
examination at the - indicating that his test results ranked second among his 
classmates; a 1998 letter from the indicating that he 
received a "Donation as an education aid for tuition fees, books, heath insurance . . . at the = 
and documentation indicating that he received a $433 m 
~cholarshi~ for Graduate Students in Neuroscience at The petitioner 
did not submit evidence of the national or international recognition of his academic awards, such as 
national or widespread local coverage of the award in professional or general media. The plain 
language of the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(i) specifically requires that the 
petitioner's awards be nationally or internationally recognized in the field of endeavor and it is his 
burden to establish every element of this criterion. Further, we note that eligibility for the 
preceding awards was limited to students. Significantly, this office has held, in a precedent 
decision involving a lesser classification than the one sought in this matter, that academic 
performance, measured by such criteria as grade point average, is not a specific prior 
achievement that establishes the alien's ability to benefit the national interest. Matter of New 
York State Dep't. of Transp., 22 I&N Dec. 215, 219, n.6 (Comm'r. 1998). Thus, academic 
performance is certainly not comparable to the awards criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3)(i), designed to demonstrate an alien's eligibility for this more exclusive 
classification. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner states that preceding awards 
were submitted as "background information" and not intended to satisfy the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(i). The petitioner's appellate submission does not include any arguments or 
' The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the categories of evidence not discussed in this 
decision. 
Page 6 
evidence addressing this category of evidence. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that 
he meets this criterion. 
P~lblished material about the alien in prqfessional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the alien's work in thefieldj[)r which clas.sificarion is 
sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and 
uny necessary translation. 
In general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the 
petitioner and, as stated in the regulations, be printed in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media. To qualify as major media, the publication should have significant national or 
international distribution. Some newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally serve a 
particular locality but would qualify as major media because of significant national distribution, 
unlike small local community papers.' 
In 2007, published an article coauthored by the petitioner and his Ph.D. advisor 
- Department of With 
regard to this regulatory criterion, the petitioner submitted a 25-page review article in 
(2008) citing to the petitioner and 
Page 513 of the review article in includes a 
single paragraph discussing their findings on endocannabinoid signaling. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. -. -. - 
§ 204,5(h)(3)(iii), however, requires that the published material be "about the alien" relating to his 
work rather than simply about the petitioner's work. Compare 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(3)(i)(C) relating 
to outstanding researchers or professors pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(B) of the Act. It cannot be 
credibly asserted that the review article is "about" the petitioner relating to his work. Moreover, the 
review article similarly references numerous other authors 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner states: "I understand that the 
favorable mention in . . . - is about my work, rather than 
about me, as required by this criterion. As a result, I realize that I do not meet this criterion." 
The petitioner's appellate submission does not include further arguments or evidence addressing 
this category of evidence. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this 
criterion. 
Evidence ofthe alien'.sparticipation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of 
the work of other~s in the same or an allied ,field of specification ,for which 
clc~ss(fication is sought. 
The ~etitioner submitted documentation indicating that in Februarv 2009 he Deer reviewed a single 
3 Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the articlc. For 
example. an article lhal appears in the Washington Posr, hut in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax County, 
Virginia, for instance, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
Page 7 
language requirements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 3 204,5(h)(3)(iv). However, certain 
deficiencies pertaining to this evidence will be addressed below in our final merits determination 
regarding whether the submitted evidence is commensurate with sustained national or international 
acclaim, or being among that small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major significance in the,field. 
The petitioner submitted several letters of support discussing his work. 
- I'roie.wr in thc Dcp;lrtliient oi MecI~anicill Engiriccr~ng and 
I>irc.c~or of [he ,= yi;~tcs: 
Currently, [the petitioner] is working on applying nanotechnological tools developed in 
my lab to understand neurological disease and neuronal networks in the brain. He has 
already made significant progress toward this goal and has been at the forefront of setting 
up the lab, which has been primarily a physics lab, to perform his neuroscience-related 
experiments. [The petitioner] will be the first researcher in this field to apply such tools to 
understand human diseases like Alzheimer's disease. I have no doubt in his ability to take 
his research to a higher level that that of his peers. In a short span of about two years, [the 
petitioner] has already accomplished a lot. Not only has he set up the lab and perfected 
new techniques to do his experiments, but he also has been successful in obtaining some 
extremely promising and ground breaking results. Techniques like patch clamp, 
immunology and sophisticated light scanning and recording techniques are so challenging 
that very few people possess the competence to perform them; yet [the petitioner] is using 
all of them in his current work. [The petitioner] can also integrate vastly different fields 
like biology and engineering, which makes his talents even rarer. . . . [The petitioner's] 
findings in this lab will lay a sound foundation for future researchers in the field of 
neuroscience and provide numerous imperative tools to enable such studies. Information 
about neuronal networks is indispensable for understanding and treating brain-related 
diseases. [The petitioner's] results will thus greatly facilitate the functional study of these 
networks and the discovery of the mechanisms of those diseases. 
comments on the future significance of the petitioner's ongoing work at rather 
than how his work there has already impacted the field so as to be considered original 
contributions of major significance. For instance, opines that the petitioner's findings 
"will lay a sound foundation for future researchers in the field of neuroscience" and "will thus 
greatly facilitate the functional study" of neuronal networks. 
 In this instance, there is no 
evidence showing that the petitioner's work at 
 had already significantly influenced the field 
as of the date of filing. 
 Eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. 
3s 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Regl. Commr. 1971). A petition 
cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. 
Matter qflzummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Comm'r. 1998). That decision further provides, citing 
Matter of Barrlouille, 18 I&N Dec. 114 (BIA 1981), that we cannot "consider facts that come 
into being only subsequent to the filing of a petition." Id. at 176. Further, while the petitioner is 
Page I I 
associate investigator, which means that I was in charge of a lab conducting neuroscience 
research on drug addiction. . . . During [the petitioner's] postdoctoral fellowship at 
1 interacted with him on a personal and professional level for about two years. 
~t where I first came in contact with him, he continued his research on synaptic 
transmission in a brain region considered important for addiction. He quickly learned 
techniques associated with obtaining recordings from brain slices, and in a short time, he 
showed how intra-cellular kinases are important in controlling transmission in the 
midbrain. With his technical expertise and ease with computers, he designed a setup that 
would dynamically emulate communications that a neuron in the brain would receive, 
and then observe how neurons react in response to this communication. 
does not provide specific examples of how the approach developed by the petitioner 
has influenced others in the field or is being applied in their work. Further, there is no 
documentary evidence showing that the petitioner's work is frequently cited by independent 
researchers or that his findings otherwise equate to original scientific contributions of major 
significance in the field. 
- Associate Professor, Department of Neuroscience, 
Graduate School of Medicine, was a postdoctoral fellow at the 
2008. states: 
ITllr. pr.titio~lcrl ;liceptetl a po\[doctoral i~llo\v\h~p to pur>uc re\earctl ill - 
la11 at thcl ha\,c known 1 the peutioncrl 
his unique research qualities. Since 
laboratory and assumed his present 
have remained in close contact. 
During his study on the role of kinases in addiction, [the petitioner] made important 
contributions to our knowledge of connections in a brain region called the nucleus 
accumbens. Specifically, he demonstrated that only local connections within this brain 
region show a unique sensitivity to protein kinase activity. On the other hand, he showed 
that connections from other brain regions to the nucleus accnmbens were insensitive to 
the activity of this family of enzymes. These results demonstrated how brain regions 
involved in addiction might differ from others and are a promising step that will fuel 
further research in the development of new strategies to combat addiction. 
Additionally, [the petitioner's] computer skills were pivotal in laboratory projects on 
simulating brain inputs to a single neuron, followed by a measurement of activity. Using 
Page 12 
his expertise with computers, he set up a functioning system that could mimic inputs 
from multiple neurons. He was also able to determine the effect of stimulating a neuron 
in the brain and the effect of these multiple inputs. This newly emerging technique 
mimics the environment surrounding neurons in different parts of the brain and will have 
a significant impact on the way we understand their functions. 
comments that the petitioner's results demonstrating how brain regions involved in 
addiction may differ from others "are a promising step that will fuel further research," but there 
is no documentary evidence showing that the etitioner's findings are already being utilized or 
otherwise applied by others in the field. Palso states that the petitioner "set up a 
functioning system that could mimic inputs from multiple neurons," but his letter does not 
provide any examples of independent research teams adopting the petitioner's system. 
htatc, thar 11e I, ..a por~doctoral iello\r at - in thc 
Dclx~rtn~cnr oi Ncurolog! ;it tllc 
 iunhcl. stares: 
I am aware of [the petitioner's] excellent publications in 
As a graduate student at 
great contributions towards the understanding of various 
factors that articipated in neural transmission. In his work published in the 
d he performed a comprehensive investigation on the role stored inside the cell in the dynamic process of neurotransmission. He discovered that 
one particular type of store was essential and sufficient for this process and that other 
stores, while functional in that they released calcium, did not promote neurotransmission. 
When I read this elegant paper, I was thrilled and strongly supported its publication in 
such a renowned journal. I was happy to see that this work by [the petitioner] was cited 
about 11 times over the last couple of years, validating his hypothesis and underlining its 
importance. Additionally his work on the effect 
 specific types 
of calcium channels, which was published in the 
 has already made 
significant impact on that field of study. 
established that the number of independent cites to 
his article in 
 is indicative of an original contribution of major 
not provide specific examples of the petitioner's 
field by independent research teams. Regarding 
the citation evidence submitted by the petitioner 
findings were independently cited only twice. 
The petitioner has not established that this minimal level of citation of his published findings 
demonstrates an original scientific contribution of major significance in the field. 
On appeal, counsel argues that the director disregarded the information contained in the letters of 
support. The opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and have been considered 
above. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert 
testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). 
However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an 
Page 13 
alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters from experts supporting 
the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those 
letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795-796; see al~so Matter qf V- 
K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not purport to 
be evidence as to "fact"). Thus, the content of the experts' statements and how they became aware 
of the petitioner's reputation are important considerations. Even when written by independent 
experts, letters solicited by an alien in support of an immigration petition are of less weight than 
preexisting, independent evidence that one would expect of a neuroscience researcher who has 
made original contributions of major significance. Without supporting evidence showing that 
the petitioner's work equates to original contributions of major significance in his field, we 
cannot conclude that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of (he alients authorship of.rcholarly artic1e.s in the,field, in pr~fi.ssionul or 
major rrude puhlicalions or other mujor mediu. 
The petitioner has documented his co-authorship of five journal articles that were published as of 
the petition's filing date and, thus, he has submitted qualifying evidence pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Evidence /ha/ rhe alien has perfi~rmed in u leading or critical role for organizulions 
or estahli.shmen/s /ha/ have a distinguished reputation. 
The etitioner submitted letters of support discussing his the direction of= 
4 at the underand at under While the petitioner has 
oerformed admirablv on the research oroiects to which he was assimed. there is no evidence . " - 
showing that his subordinate roles were leading or critical for the preceding institutions. For 
example, there is no organizational chart or other evidence documenting how the petitioner's 
positions fell within the general hierarchy of his research institutions. We note that the petitioner's - 
role at was that of a student. Moreover, the petitioner's postdoctoral appointments at the 
dm were designed to provide specialized research experience and training in his 
field of endea~or.~ The petitioner's evidence does not demonstrate how his temporaty 
appointments differentiated him from the other research scientists employed by the preceding 
institutions, let alone their tenured faculty and principal investigators. For instance. unlike 
there is no evidence that the petitioner has often served as a principal 
investigator and initiated research projects of his own. The documentation submitted by the 
petitioner does not establish that he was responsible for the preceding institutions' success or 
standing to a degree consistent with the meaning of "leading or critical role." Accordingly. the 
petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
4 
"Biological scientists with a Ph.D. often take temporary postdoctoral research positions that provide specialized 
research experience." See Iitil:: ai\u i,i:.gi,\ oi'.) p'ii ~tii>.il l:.~pl:; accessed on March 18, 201 I, copy incorporated 
into the record of proceeding. 
.- 
Page 14 
In this case, we concur with the director's determination that the petitioner has failed to 
demonstrate his receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least 
three of the ten categories of evidence that must be satisfied to establish the minimum eligibility 
requirements necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. 8 C.F.R. # 204,5(h)(3). A 
final merits determination that considers all of the evidence follows. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
In accordance with the Kazarian opinion, we will next conduct a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a 
"level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to 
the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor," 8 C.F.R. # 204.5(h)(2); and (2) "that the alien has 
sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in 
the field of expertise." Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. # 204.5(h)(3). See also Kazarian, 
596 F.3d at 1119-1120. In the present matter, many of the deficiencies in the documentation 
submitted by the petitioner have already been addressed in our preceding discussion of the 
regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. $3 204.5(h)(3)(ii), (iii), (iv), (v), and (viii). 
With regard to the evidence submitted for 8 C.F.R. # 204.5(h)(3)(i), we note that applicants for the 
scholarships received by the petitioner were limited to students. Thus, they cannot establish that 
the petitioner is one of the very few at the top of his field. See 8 C.F.R. # 204.5(h)(2). USCIS 
has long held that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the 
"extraordinary ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953,954 (Assoc. Commr. 1994); 56 
Fed. Reg. at 60899.~ Likewise, it does not follow that receipt of an award which excludes veteran 
scientists in the field from consideration should necessarily qualify a researcher for an extraordinary 
ability employment-based immigrant visa. To find otherwise would contravene the regulatory 
requirement at 8 C.F.R. # 204.5(h)(2) that this visa category be reserved for "that small percentage 
of individuals that have risen to the very top of their field of endeavor." 
Regarding the documentation submitted for 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(iv), we cannot conclude that the 
petitioner's level and frequency of peer review is commensurate with sustained national or 
While we acknowledge that a district court's decision is not binding precedent, we note that in Mnrter ofRocitre. 
1995 WL 153319 at *4 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 16, 1995), the court stated: 
I'rlhe plain reading of the statute suggests that the appropriate field of comparison is not a comparison of 
Racine's ability with that of all the hockey players at all levels of play; but rather, Racine's ability as a 
professional hockey player within the NHL. This interpretation is consistent with at least one other court in 
this district, Grimson v. INS, No. 93 C 3354. (N.D. Ill. September 9, 1993). and the definition of the term 
8 C.F.R. 4 204.5(h)(2), and the discussion set forth in the preamble at 56 Fed. Reg. 60898.99, 
Although the present case arose within the jurisdiction of another federal judicial district and circuit, the court's 
reasoning indicates that USCIS' interpretation of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2) is reasonable. 
Page 15 
international acclaim at the verv tou of the field of endeavor. As ureviouslv discussed, the 
stating: 
The review of manuscripts is an essential step in maintaining the high scientific and 
literary standards of our publication. To maintain the distinguished international 
reputation and worldwide influence of the following criteria are 
used to select Expert Reviewers for the journal: 
(1) A reviewer must be a recognized expert in the special field who can give precise 
comments and decisions on the submitted paper. Preferably, we tend to select leading 
experts with renowned international reputation in their own fields so that helshe can 
judge objectively the quality of the manuscript, of its experimental and theoretical 
work, of its interpretations and its exposition, with due regard to the maintenance of 
high scientific and literary standards of our journal. 
(2) The reviewer must have proven outstanding research experience in his field of 
expertise as well as related fields. 
(3) A reviewer must be aware of the most updated technological as well as theoretical 
developments in areas generally related to hisher own field of expertise. 
[The petitioner] meets these requirements for his field of expertise, and I can confirm that 
his contributions as a peer reviewer have helped to maintain the high quality and 
standards of the journal, for which we are grateful. 
The etitioner's response also included a copy of the "Reviewing Guidelines" for = 
&stating: 
We try to ensure that the reviewers we select are experts in the relevant field(s) . . . and can 
thus assist us in evaluating whether a manuscript is suitable for publication. In rare cases it 
can happen that we select an inappropriate reviewer - if this occurs, please inform us 
immediately. 
Suggestions for suitable alternative reviewers are greatly appreciated 
We ask reviewers to rccornmend a particular course of action in their report. The final 
decision by the responsible editor is informed by the strengths of the arguments of the 
Page 16 
author atzd all reviewers, and may not always agree with the "majoriQ" ofthe reviewer 
recommendations. 
[Emphasis added.] 
According to the submitted "Reviewing Guidelines," the final decision is made by the "responsible 
editor" who may override the majority of the peer reviewers' recommendations. 
We cannot ignore that scientific journals are peer reviewed and rely on many scientists to review 
submitted articles. Thus, peer review is routine in the field; not every peer reviewer enjoys 
national or international acclaim. Normally a journal's editorial staff will enlist the assistance of 
numerous professionals in the field who agree to review submitted papers. It is common for a 
publication to ask several reviewers to review a manuscript and to offer comments. As is the 
case with - the publication's editorial staff may accept or reject any 
reviewer's comments in determining whether to publish or reject submitted papers. Without 
evidence that sets the petitioner apart from others in his field, such as evidence that he has 
received and completed independent requests for review from a substantial number of journals or 
served in an editorial position for a distinguished journal as of the petition's filing date, we 
cannot conclude that his level and frequency of peer review is commensurate with sustained 
national or international acclaim at the very top of the field of endeavor. For instance, 
curriculum vitae states that he is Associate Editor of 
and that he serves on the editorial boards for at least three different journals. 
Regarding the petitioner's original research findings discussed under 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(v), as 
stated above, they do not appear to rise to the level of contributions of "major significance" in the 
field. Demonstrating that the petitioner's work was "original" in that it did not merely duplicate 
prior research is not useful in setting the petitioner apart through a "career of acclaimed work." 
H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). That page (59) also says that "an alien must (1) 
demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim in the sciences, arts, education, business or 
athletics (as shown through extensive documentation). . ." Research work that is unoriginal would 
be unlikely to secure the petitioner a master's degree, let alone classification as a scientific 
researcher of extraordinary ability. To argue that all original research is, by definition, 
"extraordinary" is to weaken that adjective beyond any useful meaning, and to presume that most 
research is "unoriginal." 
While the petitioner has published scholarly articles based on his graduate and postdoctoral 
research, the Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook (OOH), 2010-1 1 Edition, 
(accessed at www.hls.~ov/oco on March 18, 2011 and incorporated into the record of proceedings), 
provides information about the nature of employment as a postsecondary teacher (professor) and the 
requirements for such a position. See www.bls.eovloco/ocosf)66.htni. The handbook expressly 
states that faculty members are pressured to perfom research and publish their work and that the 
professor's research record is a consideration for tenure. Moreover, the doctoral programs training 
students for faculty positions require a dissertation, or written report on original research. Id. 
Further, the OOH states specifically with respect to the biological sciences that a "solid record of 
published research is essential in obtaining a pemancnt position performing basic research, 
Page 17 
especially for those seeking a permanent college or university faculty position." See 
www.bls.rov/oco/ocos047.htm. This information reveals that original published research, whether 
arising from research at a university or private employer, does not set the researcher apart from 
faculty in that researcher's field. 
Moreover, the petitioner's citation history is a relevant consideration as to whether the evidence is 
indicative of the petitioner's recognition beyond his own circle of collaborators. See Kazarian, 
re\ iou\ly di\cu\\cd, the tlucu~nent;~tion \uh~~~itted hy the pet1tlonr.r t'r0111 
i~~clicatc~ that hi\ hody oi work h;ld hrrn indrpendcntly c.~~cd lo no more 
than a dozen times as of the petition's filing date. This level of citation is not sufficient to 
demonstrate that the petitioner's articles have attracted a level of interest in his field 
commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of his field. 
Ultimately, the evidence in the aggregate does not distinguish the petitioner as one of the small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. The petitioner relies primarily on 
his single instance of participation in the widespread peer review process, his co-authorship of five 
journal articles and five conference papers with his superiors, citation evidence showing that his 
work has been occasionally cited, and the praise of his references. 
We note that the petitioner's references' credentials are far more impressive. For example, = 
states: 
funded by the U.S. 
Department of Defense (DoD). I am leading a research laboratory consisting of over 40 
graduate students and postdocs and we are one of the leading groups in nano-scale 
science and technology, metamaterials, nano-photonics and bio-technologies. 
~II~~~CIIIUIII \it;lc .;talc\ tli;lt he i Al\t)c.la~c l~ditor oi 
tlla~ IIC scr\c\ 011 thc cd~torlal hoard, lor at lcast tllrec 
different journals 
states: 
Particularly the neurophysiology of the retina, a field in which I am internationally 
known. 
Page 18 
Further, letter was accompanied by a list indicating that he has authored more than 
fifty publications. 
While the petitioner need not demonstrate that there is no one more accomplished than himself to 
qualify for the classification sought, it appears that the very top of his field of endeavor is far above 
the level he has attained. In this case, the petitioner has not established that his achievements at the 
time of filing were commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim as a neuroscience 
researcher, or being among that small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. 
111. Conclusion 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself to such an 
extent that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim and to be 
within the small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the 
petitioner's achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field at a national or 
international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be 
denied by the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in 
the initial decision. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1043, 
afd, 345 F.3d at 683; see also Soltune v. DOJ, 381 F.3d at 145 (noting that the AAO conducts 
appellate review on a de novo basis). 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for 
the benefit sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. 
Here, that burden has not been met. 
We note that the petitioner is the beneficiary of an approved petition classifying him as a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree pursuant to section 203(b)(2)(B) of the 
Act. This decision is without prejudice to the approval of that petition, filed under a lesser 
classification. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.