dismissed EB-1A Case: Orthopaedic Research

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
identifving data deleled t~ 
prevent dLarly unwmante~~ 
hvasion ol Wrsonal privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: JUN 2 0 2005 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
ecided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
r 
/ Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
ii Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont 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. 5 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. 
The applicable regulation defines the statutory term "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. § 204.5(h)(2). Specific supporting evidence must accompany the petition to document the "sustained 
national or international acclaim" that the statute requires. 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(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. 
In this case, the petitioner seeks classification as an alien with extraordinary ability in the sciences, specifically 
in the field of orthopaedic research. The record indicates that at the time of filing the petitioner was a 
postdoctoral fellow and research associate at the Center for Musculoskeletal Research within the Department of 
Orthopaedics at the University of Rochester, New York. The petitioner initially submitted supporting 
documents including his curriculum vitae, published articles and book chapters, evidence of the citation of his 
articles, evidence that he was a referee for a scientific journal in his field, a copy of the National TULES Award 
presented to the petitioner in Finland in 2001, evidence of his membership in professional associations, and 
eight recommendation letters from his supervisors and colleagues. The director noted the petitioner's 
accomplishments, but found that the evidence did not demonstrate the requisite sustained acclaim. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits additional evidence including recommendation letters from two independent 
experts in his field, a second letter from his former supervisor at the University of Rochester, additional articles, 
a letter attesting to the significance of his Tules award, new evidence of his review of articles submitted to 
scientific journals, and additional information regarding his membership in professional associations. Much of 
the evidence submitted on appeal arose after the petition was filed and consequently cannot be considered. The 
petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing; a petition cannot be approved after the petitioner 
becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(l2), Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 
(Comm. 1971). The remaining evidence submitted on appeal does not overcome the substantive reasons for 
denial and we affirm the director's decision. The evidence submitted, the petitioner's claims and the director's 
decision are addressed in the following discussion of the regulatory criteria relevant to this case. 
(i) Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards 
for excellence in theJield of endeavor. 
The petitioner initially submitted a copy of a certificate entitled "National Tules Award." The certificate reads: 
skeletal Diseases and Inflammation Research (TULES) has the pleasure to 
Ph.D., to National Musculoskeletal Research Award based on his excellent 
work in the field of total ioint re~lacement and arthritis research. Biomedicum Helsinki. March 3 1.2001 ." The 
certificate contains the seal oft 
a rec 
the University of Helsinki from 1996 to 2000. The director found the certificate insufficient to meet this 
criterion because it states only that the petitioner has been nominated for, not actually received the award and 
because the record contained no documentation of the eligibility and selection criteria for the award. 
On appeal, the petitioner 'Secretary of the Finnish Musculo- 
Skeletal Research Society. Professo the TULES award and explains 
that "[tlhis prize is a unique domestic or foreign scientists - 
working in the musculoskeletal research field in is the most respected and most important 
award in this specific field in Finland." explains that approximately ten "exceptionally 
qualified finalists are proposed nationwide" and Finnish scientists in Orthopaedics and 
Rheumatology fields select the prize winner, who must demonstrate extraordinary success in Orthopaedics and 
Rheumatology research according to international standards." This letter sufficiently establishes that the 
TULES award is a lesser nationally recognized prize for excellence in the petitioner's field in Finland. 
However, the record indicates that the petitioner has been working in this field for nearly 20 years. The receipt 
of one nationally recognized award over the course of an almost two-decade long career does not reflect the 
sustained acclaim requisite .to classification as an alien with extraordinary ability. Accordingly, the petitioner 
does not meet this criterion. 
(ii) Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which class~fication is sought, 
which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international 
experts in their disciplines or jields. 
The director correctly determined that the petitioner did not meet this criterion. The petitioner initially 
submitted an undated certificate stating that he is an associate member of the Orthopaedic Research Society 
(ORS) and a letter from the Secretary of the Finnish Society for Rheumatology stating that his application for 
membership in that society was accepted on August 14, 2000. The record contains no evidence re arding the 
significance of the latter membership. On appeal, the petitioner submits a letter from - ORS 
Executive Director, stating that the society's membership requirements are attendance at one or more ORS 
annual meetings, presentation of a paper at an ORS annual meeting or publication of two peer reviewed papers 
in the field, two recommendation letters from current ORS members and payment of annual dues. Such 
accomplishments are generally expected of scientific researchers active in their fields and the record contains no 
evidence that the ORS membership requirements constitute outstanding achievements. Accordingly, the 
petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
On appeal, the petitioner submitted evidence relatin to his membership in the American Society for Bone and 
Mineral Research (ASBMR). A letter from ASBMR Membership and Marketing Assistant, 
states that the petitioner became an ASBMR member in May, 2004. Because this membership arose over a year 
after his petition was filed, we cannot consider this evidence. The petitioner must establish eligibility at the time 
of filing. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(12), Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49 (Comm. 1971). 
(iii) Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media, 
relating to the alien's work in theJield for which classzfication is sought. Such evidence shall include the 
title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
The record indicates that the petitioner's scholarly articles have been cited. The director correctly stated that 
mere citation of a scientist's work by other researchers is not sufficient evidence to satisfy this category. 
Citation to the work of other researchers is requisite to articles published in scientific journals. Hence, citation 
alone is not evidence that the citing article is about the scientist, as described in the regulation, without evidence 
that the citing articles feature or discuss the scientist's work more than in passing to establish a subsidiary point. 
In this case the petitioner has not submitted copies of the citing articles from which we could determine whether 
or not they feature or significantly discuss his work. The record contains no other evidence of published 
material about the petitioner in professional, major trade publications or other major media. Accordingly, the 
petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
(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 alIiedJield of specification for which classification is sought. 
The director correctly found that the petitioner did not satis@ this category. The petitioner initially submitted 
excerpts from the "Index 2000" and the "Index 2001" of Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavia listing him as a 
referee. Both excerpts state that this journal "is the official publication of the Nordic Orthopedic Federation and 
the Netherlands Orthopedic Society." The record contains no evidence that Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavia is a 
well respected or highly regarded journal in the petitioner's field or any other evidence that selection as a referee 
for this journal reflects sustained national or international acclaim in orthopaedics. In fact, the evidence 
suggests otherwise. The excerpts alphabetically list the referees for the journal and the petitioner has only 
included the sections containing his name. Yet these pages alone include the petitioner with 117 other 
individuals on the excerpt from the "Index 2000" listing referees with last names from 
Is on the excerpt from the "Index 2001'' listing 
Hence the documents do not suggest that selection as a referee for this journal is 
indicative of national or international acclaim. Accordingly, the petitioner does 
not meet this criterion. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits an excerpt from the December 2003 edition of Clinical Orthopaedics and 
Related Research that includes his name in a list of reviewers. The petitioner also submitted a letter from the 
journal's Editor-in-Chief requesting his review of a submitted article. The letter is dated April 29, 2003. These 
documents indicate that the petitioner did not serve as a reviewer for this journal until after his petition was 
filed. Consequently, we cannot consider this evidence. Again, the petitioner must establish his eligibility at the 
time of filing. See 8 C.F.R. tj 103.2(b)(12), Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of 
major significance in thejeld. 
The director correctly determined that the petitioner did not meet this criterion. The petitioner initially submitted 
evidence of his publications, the citation of his articles, and eight recommendation letters from his current and 
former supervisors and colleagues. On appeal, the petitioner submits a second letter from his supervisor at the 
University of Rochester and two letters from independent experts in his field. While recommendation 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 field beyond the limited number of individuals with whom he 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 international acclaim. Accordingly, we review the petitioner's 
recommendation letters as they relate to other evidence of his contributions. 
Dean Professor of Orthopaedics, Associate Director of the Center for Musculoskeletal 
Research (Center) at the University of Rochester and the petitioner's supervisor, stated in his first letter dated 
January 15, 2003 that the. etitioner "is currently working at my group as a post-doctoral fellow/research 
associate." Profess0 dxplains that the petitioner joined his laboratory less than a year from the date of 
his letter, but that in this "relative1 short period, he has already made several notable contributions to our 
research programs." Professo laims that the petitioner "has more near [sic] 30 research publications 
in highly respected international medical journals . . . [and] has risen to the very top of his field." On appeal, the 
petitioner submits a second letter from Professor d November 4, 2004 and stating that the 
petitioner's work at the Center "has resulted in severa outstanding publications in high quality journals. His 
- - 
current work will have a great impact on the field of musculoskeletal research and transforming growth factor- 
beta signaling. This most recent work was selected for an oral presentation at the recent meetin of the 
American Society of Bone and Mineral Research [ASBMR] in Seattle Washington." Professor hlso 
states that the petitioner has "recently been listed as finalist [sic] for a prestigious research award of the 
Orthopaedic Research Society," but the record contains no corroborative evidence of this nomination. On 
appeal, the petitioner submitted evidence that he has published his recent research in three additional articles in 
scholarly journals. These publications and the petitioner's participation at the ASBMR conference occurred 
after the petition was filed and consequently cannot be considered. The petitioner must establish eligibility at 
the time of filing; a petition cannot be approved after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. 
See 8 C.F.R. 9 103.2(b)(12), Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. The record indicates that at the time of 
filing, none of the petitioner's research at the Center had been published. 
The record also contains who supervised the petitioner's work as a doctoral student 
at the University of Helsinki. Professor, Chief Physician, Head of Research and a leader 
of the Musculoskeletal Group (TULES Group), praises the petitioner as 
Page 6 
one of his two best research fellows. Professor xplains that while in Finland, the petitioner "was 
involved in the study of the mechanism of aseptic loosening of total i ement prostheses, the most severe 
complications affecting the US and world population." Professor also notes that the petitioner has 
published nearly 30 articles in highly respected medical journals. NlL Professor of Anatomy and 
Chairman of the Institute of Biomedicine, explains that the petitioner's research "focused on the expression of 
extracellular matrix proteins in the interface tissue around loosened total hip re lacement. . . . As far as I know, 
no other groups have done similar research as we did. . . . The results of Dr. search will help us to prevent 
prosthesis loosening through several novel approaches." Professor & states that the petitioner has 
published "more than 20 papers in peer-reviewing international journals" and concludes that the petitioner's 
A - 
"pioneering and unique research has greatly contributed to our understanding of the mechanism of aseptic - 
loosening of total hip replacement and continues to be of eat international importance." The petitioner's third 
supervisor at the University of Helsinki, Professor and Chairman of the Department of 
Orthopaedics and Traumatology, states that the petitioner "was a very successful visiting researcher in the 
Musculoskeletal Sciences and Inflammation Research Group at the University of Helsinki during 1996 to 2001 ." 
Professor Santavirta explains that the petitioner "was a skilled researcher already when he arrived in Finland, 
and during his stay in Finland he acquired some unique and important techniques useful in top-level modern 
medical research. He presented an excellent PhD-thesis at the University of Helsinki, and close to 30 
international research papers published in the leading medical research journals." In sum, the petitioner's 
former supervisors praise his skills and attest to the value of his work in Finland, but they do not identify any ' 
specific, original contributions of major significance that came from this research and that can be principally 
attributed to the petitioner. 
The petitioner also submitted a letter from ~ssociate Professor at the University of Helsinki 
who states that she has known the petitioner since 1999. ~rofessorescribes the petitioner as "an 
extraordinarily valuable scientist due to his unique combination of profound howl in clinical orthopaedic 
and excellent research skills" in medical and biomedical sciences. Professo drites "on the basis of 
ignificant contributions in the area of orthopaedic re earch " but does not specifically identify those 
The record also contains a letter from -Associate Professor in the 
Department of Orthopaedics at Yamagata University in Japan, who states tha ked with the petitioner 
when he was a postgraduate researcher at the University of Helsinki. Professor ates that "[Iln Finland, 
became an expert in molecular biology as well as in orthopaedics. His outstanding research 
accomplishments have been recognized internationally and set him apart from other researchers in his field. His 
thesis has been selected as a must-read for all orthopaedic residents in Finland." Yet the record contains no 
corroborative evidence that the petitioner's doctoral thesis has been so widely read. 
Apart from his work in Finland, the petitioner submitted two letters attesti to his prior accomplishments in 
China and how they contribute to his current research. Professor of Orthopaedics at the 
People's Hospital of Peking University, states that the petitioner "was the chief surgeon, associate professor, and 
the head of the academic staff at ~ehan Province ~oi~ital." Professor xilains that this hospital is the 
largest in the highly populated province of Henan and that "[tlhe huge number of patients helped 
accumulate his clinical experience . . . . His profound knowledge in clinical orthopaedics in turn helps n ~rn to 
focus on the most important research fields, and the outcome of the research will definitely benefit all patients in 
orthopaedics and rheumatology." Professorraises the petitioner as "among the top scientists who have at 
the same time the solid clinical ex erience and outstanding skills in basic research." The petitioner also 
submitted a letter purportedly from -Professor of Pediatric Surgery at Zhenphou University, 
the former Henan Medical University where the petitioner obtained his medical degree, and Vice Chairman of 
Page 7 
the Zhengzhou University Hospital. This letter is not signed by Professor Wen, but is affixed with the seal of 
Zhengzhou University Hospital. ~rofessorffirms that the petitioner was "enrolled to [sic] our university 
in 1979 as a genius student . . . [and] was always the best student in our medical school. Last year,ave 
us an excellent lecture on orthopaedic research." ~rofessostates that the petitioner "is a smart scientists 
[sic] and the most productive investigator, ranking top among the students graduating from our medical school. 
We are really proud of him. In addition to his nearly 30 publications in the leading English journals 
many papers published in the most important Chinese journals." Although ~rofessorand 
contributions of major significance made by the petitioner in China. 
praise the petitioner as an accomplished medical doctor and researcher, they identify no specific scientific 
Finally, on appeal, the petitioner submitted two letters from independent experts in his field. - 
~rofessor and Chairman of the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery at the Boston University School of 
Medicine states that he was "asked to provide an advisory opinion" for this petition based "on observations of 
[the petitioner's] performances during the past 3 years in the skeletal biology field during which time he has 
worked in the Center for Musculoskeletal Research at the University of Rochester." ~rofesso~x~lains 
that the petitioner has studied "the mechanisms by which the parathyroid hormone related peptide regulates the 
master gene regulator Runx2. This original work brought a singular insight into the process of cartilage 
preservation through inhibition of chondrocyte maturation. 1so unraveled the signaling pathways that 
mediate prostaglandin hormonal effects that inhibit chondrocyte maturaltion preventing cartilage degradation." 
Professor also notes that the petitioner "is now determining the genetic networks involved in 
osteoarthritis in animal models lacking the key gene that mediates bone and cartilage morphogenesis. This will 
lead to eventual breakthroughs in development of new therapies for this devastating disease." Although 
~rofessowescribes the petitioner as an "extraordinary scientist," he bases his opinion largely on 
research completed by the petitioner after his petition was filed and thus cannot be fully considered. The 
petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing; a petition cannot be approved 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. at 49. 
Maurizio Pacifici, Professor and Associate Director of Research in the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery at 
the Thomas Jefferson University School of Medicine, states that [tlhough I have not had the opportunity yet to 
meet him personally, I think that is a top scientist who has received well-deserved international 
recognition for his distinguished contributions to the Orthopaedics and Rheumatology fields." Of the 
petitioner's work in Finland, Professo tates that "[hlis pioneering work provides us important insights 
into mechanisms causing prosthesis loosen~ng. The implications of his research are far-reaching and extremely 
important since novel therapeutic approaches can be developed based on these results." Regarding the 
petitioner's subsequent work at the University of Rochester, ~rofessortates that the petitioner "has 
demonstrated that among several prostaglandins, PGE2 is the most potent inhibitor of chondrocyte maturation" 
and that his "studies provide novel insights into the mechanism of chondrocyte differentiation and 
osteoarthritis." ~rofesso'also states that the petitioner's current work has resulted in "important 
findings [that] greatly improve our understanding of normal and pathological cartilage formation, and have a 
direct application in Orthopaedics including but not restricted to osteoarthritis." Yet Professor = 
comments on the petitioner's work at the University of Rochester cannot be fully considered because, as 
previously explained, the record indicates that most of this research occurred after the petition was filed. Again, 
the petitioner must establish his eligibility at the time of filing. See 8 C.F.R. $ 103.2(b)(12), Mutter of Katigbuk, 
14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
The record does not fully support the remaining claims made by the petitioner's recommenders. The 
petitioner submitted evidence that at the time of filing he had published a total of 30 articles in scholarly 
journals in his field, including four review articles. The petitioner has also written eight book chapters and is 
the lead author of five chapters. The petitioner is the lead author of only seven of his journal articles. In the 
letter accompanying his Form 1-140, the petitioner explained that "in Finland, some principal investigators, 
even professors, can frequently be the first authors of the original articles although most work has been done 
by the second author. This is very uncommon in the United States. From my CV, you can see that there are 
several articles in which I am the second author. It's true that I have done most of work [sic] in these 
papers." The record shows that the petitioner is the second author of eight articles. Although the petitioner's 
claim regarding the publication custom in Finland may be true, the record contains no corroborative evidence 
of this purported fact. Simply going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient to 
meet the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soflci, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing 
Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). The petitioner also lists nine 
articles published in Chinese medical journals, eight of which he is the lead author, yet he chose not to include 
evidence of these publications as stated on page three of his initial cover letter. 
The petitioner provides evidence of the citation of only 16 of his English articles in the form of printouts from 
the IS1 Web of Science website. The printouts state the number of times each article has been cited, but do not 
list the individual citations themselves and the record contains no other evidence that the citations were all made 
by independent research teams and do not include self-citations by the petitioner or his co-authors. Although 
these 16 articles have been cited a total of 55 times, the petitioner submits printouts for only two articles of 
which he is the lead author. One article, entitled "No Lymphokines in T-cells Around Loosened Hip 
Prostheses," has been cited twice. The other article, entitled "Increased Expression of EMMPRIN in the Tissue 
Around Loosened Hip Prostheses," has been cited only once. This minimal citation does not demonstrate that 
these articles document original scientific contributions of major significance in the petitioner's field. 
The only other evidence relevant to this category is the petitioner's TULES award. As previously discussed 
under the first criterion, the record establishes that this award is a nationally recognized prize for excellence in 
the petitioner's field in Finland. Yet the award does not state the exact contributions that the petitioner has 
made to his field. Moreover, given the minimal citation of only two articles of which the petitioner is the lead 
author, this award alone is insufficient evidence that the petitioner has made original contributions of major 
significance to his field in a manner consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. Accordingly, 
the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The director correctly determined that the petitioner did not meet this criterion. 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 experts or other proof that the alien's publications have 
had a significant impact in his field. As previously discussed under the fifth criterion, the petitioner in this case 
submitted evidence that at the time of filing he had published 30 articles in scholarly journals in his field, 
including four review articles. He is the lead author of only seven of these articles. The petitioner has also 
written eight book chapters and is the lead author of five of these chapters. 
Page 9 
The petitioner submitted citation information for only 16 of his articles and only two articles of which he is 
the lead author. The latter two articles have been cited a combined total of only three times. As previously 
discussed, the record contains no documentation of the citing articles to demonstrate that the citations were 
all made by independent research teams and do not include self-citations by the author or his co-authors. In 
addition, the record contains no independent evidence such as the impact factors of the journals in which the 
petitioner has published that would indicate that the journals are highly regarded in his field. The record thus 
does not evidence a publication record that is consistent with sustained national or international acclaim in 
the petitioner's field. Accordingly, he does not meet this criterion. 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments 
that have a distinguished reputation. 
The director noted that the petitioner had made meaningful contributions as a researcher, but she correctly 
determined that he did not meet this criterion. The record indicates that the petitioner was a professor of 
orthopaedics at the Henan Province Hospital in China. He then went to Finland where he obtained his doctoral 
degree from the University of Helsinki where he remained as a postdoctoral fellow for two years before coming 
to the United States as a postdoctoral fellow at the Center for Musculoskeletal Research at the University of 
Rochester. 
The only evidence addressing the petitioner's role at the Henan Province Hospital in China is the letter of 
Professor Chuan-Han Feng that was previously discussed under the fifth criterion. ~rofessor-s that the 
petitioner was "the chief surgeon, associate professor, and the head of the academic staff at Henan Province 
Hospital," but the record contains no corroborative evidence of the petitioner's role at the hospital or 
documentation that the hospital had a distinguished reputation at that time. 
The petitioner's work at the University of Helsinki as described by the recommendation letters of his supervisors 
and colleagues was also discussed under the fifth criterion. Professor Konttinen praises the petitioner as one of 
the two best research fellows he has had, but does not indicate that the petitioner played a leading or critical role 
for his research group. ~rofesso~also praises the petitioner's skills and research, but describes the 
etitioner's work at the University of Helsinki as having been decided and guided by his supervisors. Professor 
h similarly describes the petitioner as a "very successful visiting researcher," but focuses on the accomplishments and reputation of the Musculoskeletal Sciences and Inflammation Research Grou and states 
only that the petitioner "was really an important member in the group." Professodstates that 
"[dluring his stay had made major contributions to our research" as evidenced by his contribution "to 
almost 20 original peer reviewed articles as a co-author and [that he] is the first author in some 10 additional 
original research articles." These letters combined with the petitioner's receipt of the TULES award indicate 
that the petitioner made significant and valuable contributions to his research group in Finland, but the evidence 
does not demonstrate that the petitioner played a leading or critical role for this group. The record also contains 
no independent evidence that the Musculoskeletal Sciences and Inflammation Research Group has a 
distinguished reputation. 
The record also does not establish the petitioner's eligibility under this criterion by virtue of his role at the 
Center for Musculoskeletal Research (Center) at the University of Rochester. The record indicates that at the 
time of filing, the petitioner had been a postdoctoral fellow and research associate at the University of Rochester 
for less than one year. In his first letter, ~rofesso the petitioner's supervisor, states that the petitioner 
"plays a pivotal role" in some of his laboratory's research projects. ~rofessox~lains that given the 
Page 10 
petitioner's experience and technical expertise, "his departure would seriously jeopardize the successful 
completion of our ongoing research projects." In a subsequent letter submitted on appeal, ~rofessor- 
states that the petitioner has become an "Instructor" and "independent investigator" at the Center and is "an 
essential member of our research group." Although some of the-evidence submked on appeal suggests that the 
petitioner has recently gained significant recognition for his research conducted at the Center, 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 after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See 8 
C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(12), Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. The record establishes that, at the time of filing, 
the petitioner was a postdoctoral fellow and research associate at the Center. The evidence indicates that 
although his work was highly valued, the focus and direction of his research was led not by the petitioner 
himself, but by his supervisor, ~rofessor~he record also contains no independent evidence that the 
Center has a distinguished reputation. Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
An immigrant visa will be granted to an alien under section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1 1 53(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 the petitioner is an accomplished researcher in the field of orthopaedics, yet the record 
does not establish that at the time of filing he had achieved sustained national or international acclaim placing 
him at the very top of his field. 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. 3 1 153(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. fj 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be 
dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.