dismissed EB-1A Case: Pediatric Gastroenterology

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
identifying dam deleted to 
.\v unw znanted 
prevent clra. , 
iD*4asi~s of ps wnz! p:iv acy 
lp91BUC COPY? 
FILE: LIN 07 148 52158 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
0f)ce ofAdmin~strative Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
IN RE: 
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. 
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. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
cting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
LIN 07 148 52158 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in the sciences, pursuant to 
section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A). The 
director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim 
necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief and an additional exhibit. Counsel asserts in general that the 
director erred in considering the petitioner as a "medical scientist in the field of Pediatric 
Gastroenterology" and comparing her achievements with other "researchers." Counsel asserts that the 
petitioner is actually a "professor" and "practicing pediatric gastroenterologist" who has "an interest in 
scientific research." While counsel asserts that it is rare for a practicing physician to engage in research 
in Brazil, she does not assert that it is rare for professors of medicine to do so. Counsel appears to be 
requesting that we accord significance to the petitioner's research accomplishments by comparing her 
only to non-researchers. 
Counsel is not persuasive. On Parts 5 and 6 of the petition, the petitioner lists her current occupation 
and proposed employment as "medical scientist." We cannot conclude that the director erred in 
reiterating the occupation listed on the petition, signed by both the petitioner certifying the truth of the 
information and counsel as the preparer. 
On the first page of counsel's initial brief, counsel characterized the petitioner as "one of the most 
promising research scientists." On the first page of counsel's brief in response to the request for 
additional evidence, counsel asserted that the petitioner "was the world's first researcher to study" a 
specific infection in germ free animals. (Emphasis in original.) We also note certain language in a 
letter from 
 Director of the Medical School of the Federal University of 
Minas Gerais (UFMG) in Brazil where the petitioner is employed. Specifically, 
 asserts that 
after returning to Brazil in 2000, the petitioner "has concentrated on clinical research." The letters 
submitted in response to the director's request for additional evidence all purport to explain the 
significance of the petitioner's publications and research. Counsel does not explain why the director 
erred in using counsel's own terminology and the terminology of the petitioner's references. In fact, 
counsel's request that the petitioner not be considered as a medical scientist or researcher (albeit a 
clinical researcher) constitutes a material change from the initial submission. A petitioner may not 
make material changes to a petition that has already been filed in an effort to make an apparently 
deficient petition conform to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) requirements. See 
Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Comm'r. 1998). 
Moreover, the record contains no evidence that the petitioner is admissible as a graduate of a foreign 
medical school seeking to perform services as a member of the medical profession under section 
212(a)(5)(B) of the Act. Thus, it would appear that the petitioner cannot be seeking to enter the 
LIN 07 148 52158 
Page 3 
United States to continue in her area of expertise pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A)(ii) of the Act if 
she defines that area as practicing medicine rather than research. 
Regardless, for the reasons discussed above and below, the petitioner has not demonstrated the 
necessary national or international acclaim as a physician, professor or a researcher. We reach this 
decision based on a consideration of the evidence under the regulatory criteria and in the aggregate. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are 
aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, 
business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or 
international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the 
field through extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service 
(INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals 
seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-9 (Nov. 29, 
1991). As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of expertise indicating 
that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). The specific requirements for supporting documents to establish that 
an alien has sustained national or international acclaim and recognition in his or her field of expertise 
are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. 
It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that she has sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top level. 
As stated above, according to Part 6 of the petition signed by the petitioner and counsel, this petition 
seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as a "medical scientist." The 
petitioner received her medical degree from UFMG in 1977. Since 1980, the petitioner has worked 
as a professor at UFMG although she also continued her education during this time, receiving her 
Ph.D. in Gastroenterology in 1997. She performed postdoctoral training as a visiting professor at 
LIN 07 148 52158 
Page 4 
North Carolina State University (NC State) and the University of North Carolina (UNC) from 1998 
through 2000. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international 
recognized award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, at 
least three of which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualifj 
as an alien of extraordinary ability. The petitioner has submitted evidence that, she claims, meets the 
following criteria under 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3).' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The record contains no awards issued to the petitioner as a practicing physician. Rather, counsel 
initially asserted that the petitioner meets this criterion based on recognition as a professor from 
UFMG, scholarships and research grants including a Coordination of Improvement of Higher 
Education (CAPES) grant to support the petitioner's Master's thesis and what counsel references as a 
1999 "Wyeth Nutritional International Award." The unsupported assertions of counsel do not 
constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 
1 9 I&N Dec. 1, 3 n.2 (BIA 1 983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 1 7 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). In 
support of the above assertions, the petitioner originally submitted a 1999 "Wyeth Nutritionals Int. 
Award" issued by the Karolinska Institutet, host of the XI11 Intemational Symposium on Gnotobiology, 
and graduation programs for UFMG listing the petitioner as an honored professor. Regarding counsel's 
assertion that the petitioner has been "awarded" research grants, counsel acknowledges on appeal that 
the petitioner has not submitted evidence that she is a primary investigator. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence of the significance of the petitioner's 
awards, the petitioner submitted a letter from, an associate professor at the 
Karolinska Institutet, asserting that the petitioner was selected to present an abstract at the XI11 
Intemational Symposium on Gnotobiology in 1999. 
 continues: 
"Also, because of the importance of the work [the petitioner] had done within 
Gnotobiology and the area of parasite infections, we decided to honor her extraordinary 
accomplishments by choosing her as the recipient of the Wyeth Nutritional Award 
Stipendium of 1999 during the Symposium." 
does not provide any information about the pool of competitors for the award, such as 
whether it was limited to clinical researchers presenting abstracts at this single symposium. 
also fails to confirm counsel's assertion that the stipend was $1,000. 
 m 
1 
 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
LIN 07 148 52158 
Page 5 
In addition, the petitioner submitted information about Wyeth Nutrition from its website. Nothing in 
this information addresses awards issued by Wyeth Nutrition. Rather, the information is about the 
company itself and awards and recognition it has received. Moreover, the petitioner's award certificate 
does not contain Wyeth Nutrition's logo. Rather, it contains the name of the sym osium and the name, 
address and logo of the Karolinska Institutet. The certificate is signed by 
 The certificate 
also indicates that the name of the award is "Wyeth Nutritionals Int." (Emphasis added.) Thus, the 
record does not establish that Wyeth Nutrition issued the award such that it judged the competitors and 
selected the winner. 
The petitioner also submitted a list of proceedings of the International Symposiums on Gnotobiology 
ending in 1996 (before the petitioner received the 1999 award) purportedly from the website 
www.gnotobiotics.org, the website of the Association for Gnotobiotics. The petitioner also submitted 
materials about this association, none of which address awards issued by the association, if any. 
In addition, the petitioner submitted information about CAPES and their joint scholarships with 
Fulbright. The goals for CAPES are to assess postgraduate "strict sense," access and disseminate 
scientific literature, invest in training of high-level resources and promote scientific cooperation. 
CAPES/Fulbright scholarships are designed for "candidates of proven academic performance, with 
projects that can not be made wholly or partially in Brazil, and to turn to North American institutions of 
excellence." The goal of these scholarships is to "train doctors in areas where there is [a] lack of 
consolidated groups in Brazil." (Emphasis added.) The record, however, contains no evidence that the 
petitioner actually received a CAPESIFulbright scholarship. Rather, she submitted her application for a 
2006-2007 Fulbright Visiting Scholar Application on whch she indicated that she had not previously 
received a Fulbright grant. While the petitioner also submitted a job offer from the host institution 
identified on the Fulbright application, Georgetown University, the letter makes no mention of a 
Fulbright scholarship. Rather, the letter references a $250 per semester fee for visiting researchers. 
The director concluded that grants fund future research and are not prizes or awards for excellence, that 
the etitioner's recognition as a professor was limited to a single university and that the letter from Dr. 
d was insufficient to establish the significance of the award issued by the Karolinska Institutet. On 
appeal, counsel notes that the petitioner submitted materials about Wyeth Nutrition and the Association 
for Gnotobiotics. Counsel notes the international nature of the symposiums and concludes: 
Logic would suggest that the honor of having your abstract discussed at an international 
symposium held once every three years in various locations around the world and 
receiving an award called the Wyeth Nutrition International Award that is sponsored by 
a research-based pharmaceutical and healthcare company that spans the globe, whose 
previous honorees come from around the world is an award that is internationally 
recognized. 
Counsel is not persuasive. First, acceptance of an abstract for presentation at a conference, even an 
international conference, is not an award or prize. Rather, it is comparable to the publication of 
LIN 07 148 52158 
Page 6 
scholarly articles pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 204,5(h)(3)(vi), discussed below. Moreover, the use of the 
word "international" in the name of an award or even the international pool of candidates does not 
create a presumption of international or national recognition. According to the Internet materials 
submitted, neither Wyeth Nutrition nor the Association for Gnotobiotics touts this award on their 
websites or lists recent winners. While the division of Wyeth Pharmaceuticals is Wyeth Nutrition, the 
certificate names the award as the "Wyeth Nutritionals Int. Award," suggesting the company may have 
had a minimal role in issuing the award, if any. The award certificate bears the address and logo of the 
Karolinska Institutet and the signature of an official of this institute. Thus, the award appears to be 
issued by the institute. As stated above, 
 does not indicate the basis for this award. For 
example, she does not specify whether the award is a life-time achievement award or essentially a "best 
abstract" designation. She also does not indicate the number of awards issued, the amount of the 
"stipendium," or any restrictions on the use of those funds. If the funds are a "stipend," it is not known 
whether their use is limited to funding future work. While counsel asserts that no media coverage of the 
award from 1999 remains, at issue for this criterion is the significance of the award itself. le 
petitioner did not submit media coverage of more recent awardees. Thus, the petitioner has not 
established that the Wyeth Internationals Int. Award is nationally or internationally recognized. 
Counsel further asserts on appeal that the petitioner received a $24,000 Fulbright Scholarship to North 
Carolina State University. As stated above, the unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute 
evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. at 534 n.2; Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. at 3 n.2; 
Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. at 506. The petitioner was a "postdoctoral trainee" at this 
institution and the UNC in 1998 through 2000 accordkg to d Director of the 
Immunology Graduate Program at NC State. The record contains no evi ence t at er time there was 
ursuant to a Fulbri ht Scholarshi 
 S ecifically, the grant letter is not part of the record and neither 
b nor- (in his April 21, 1999 letter requesting an extension of the 
petitioner's visit) mentions a Fulbright Scholarship. The petitioner's application for a 2006-2007 
Fulbright Visiting Scholarship indicates she had not previously received a Fulbright grant and there is 
no evidence that this later application was approved. Regardless, while competitive, Fulbright 
scholarships primarily fund training opportunities for individuals with leadership potential. The 
petitioner has not demonstrated that the most experienced and renowned medical researchers seek these 
scholarships. 
Finally, counsel asserts that the petitioner received a $20,000 grant from the Center of Gastrointestinal 
Biology and Diseases (CGIBD) at the UNC. The record contains evidence that CGIBD is a National 
Institutes of Health (NIH) funded program at the UNC and NC State. asserts that the 
petitioner collaborated with members of the center but does not suggest that she personally received a 
$20,000 grant from the center. In fact, counsel contradicts herself on this point on the previous page 
(page 2) of the appellate brief, asserting that the petitioner did not submit evidence that she is 
"recognized as a primary investigator" because she "is not currently an investigator." As primary 
investigators are the recipients of grant funds, counsel has not explained this contradiction or the 
contradiction between the claim that the petitioner is not currently an investigator and - 
assertion that she has continued in clinical research since returning to Brazil in 2000. 
LIN 07 148 52158 
Page 7 
Regardless, research grants simply fund a scientist's work. Every successful scientist engaged in 
research, of which there are hundreds of thousands, receives funding from somewhere. Obviously the 
past achievements of the principal investigator are a factor in grant proposals. The funding institution 
has to be assured that the investigator is capable of performing the proposed research. Nevertheless, a 
research grant is principally designed to fund future research, and not to honor or recognize past 
achievement. 
Finally, counsel does not challenge the director's conclusion that the petitioner's recognition by her own 
employer cannot serve to meet this criterion and we concur with the director. Such recognition is not 
indicative of or consistent with sustained national or international acclaim beyond the petitioner's own 
employer. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion as a practicing 
physician, professor, medical scientist or researcher. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the jeld for which c2assiJication is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national 
or international experts in their disciplines orjelds. 
Initially, counsel asserted that the petitioner meets this criterion through her membership in the 
"Pediatrics Society of Mineira," the Association of Gnotobiotics and the Brazilian Society of Pediatrics. 
The petitioner submitted declarations confirming her membership in the Pediatrics Society of Minas 
Gerais and the Brazilian Society of Pediatrics and what purports to be a directory of members for the 
Association for Gnotobiotics listing only the petitioner. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence of the criteria for membership of these 
societies and associations, the petitioner submitted evidence that the Brazilian Society of Pediatrics is 
the largest medical specialty society in Brazil and the third largest pediatrics society in the world with 
over 20,000 members. A declaration of the society confirms that the petitioner is certified in pediatrics. 
The declaration indicates that the "public criteria" for certification include 10 years of experience in 
pediatrics or completion of a pediatrics residency. The declaration continues that the "criterion for 
approval" according to the "published requirements" include unspecified academic education, an 
"analysis of academic titles, and awards issued by the medical societies," history of pediatric assistance 
and administration positions, publications and teaching positions. 
A second declaration from the society confirms that the petitioner is certified in pediatric 
gastroenterology based on meeting two of the six following requirements: (1) a Master's or doctoral 
degree or employment as a tenure-track professor, (2) position as a professor, (3) appointment as an 
advisor professor who has supervised at least five master dissertations or three doctoral dissertations, 
(4) five scientific publications, (5) 10 years experience, and (6) membership of the 
"Department/Committee of the Brazilian Society of Pediatrics [SBP] for at least three previous board of 
directors' meeting, before the actual board of directors." Counsel asserted that "the level of intellect, 
LIN 07 148 52158 
Page 8 
study and commitment associated with holding a Doctor of Medicine degree, in and of itself, is an 
outstanding achievement." The minimum education requirement for membership in the Brazilian 
Society of Pediatrics, however, is a Master's degree. Moreover, at issue is not whether the petitioner 
stands apart from the general population, but whether she stands apart from others in her field. Counsel 
does not explain how the requirement for an advanced degree is an outstanding achievement for a 
medical doctor, professor or researcher in a profession which typically requires advanced education to 
enter the field. Counsel further asserts that the required test for certification in pediatric medicine is a 
significant accomplishment. It is not clear from the declarations, however, whether a written test was 
required prior to 2003. These declarations appear to represent medical specialty licensure rather than 
association membership. A license is only evidence of exceptional ability pursuant to the lesser 
classification set forth at section 203(b)(2) of the Act. 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C). Regardless, for 
the reasons discussed below, the requirements are not qualifying under this criterion, set forth at 8 
C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The petitioner also submitted materials about the Brazilian Medical Association from Wikipedia. With 
regard to information from Wikipedia, there are no assurances about the reliability of the content 
from this open, user-edited internet site.2 See Lamilem Badasa v. Michael Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909 
(gth Cir. 2008). As stated above, the petitioner also submitted materials about the Association of 
Association for Gnotobiotics from its website. This information does not address its membership 
requirements. While the website includes a link for the association's bylaws, which would likely 
indicate the membership requirements, the petitioner did not provide those bylaws. 
The director concluded that the petitioner's memberships were "commensurate" with the petitioner's 
vocation. On appeal, counsel asserts that the director erred in reaching this conclusion because the 
director "incorrectly" considered the petitioner's occupation to be that of a researcher. First, as 
discussed above, we concur with the director's characterization of the petitioner as researcher, albeit 
a clinical researcher. Second, the two associations for which the petitioner submitted certification 
requirements are medical associations rather than research associations. Thus, it is not clear the 
director would have reached a different decision if he had considered the petitioner a physician. 
Online content from Wikipedia is subject to the following general disclaimer: 
WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY. 
 Wikipedia is an online open-content 
collaborative encyclopedia, that is, a voluntary association of individuals and groups working to 
develop a common resource of human knowledge. The structure of the project allows anyone with 
an Internet connection to alter its content. Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily 
been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or 
reliable information. . . . Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here. The 
content of any given article may recently have been changed, vandalized or altered by someone 
whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields. 
See http:llen.wikipedia.ordwikilWikipedia:General disclaimer, accessed on August 26, 2009, a copy of 
which is incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
LN 07 148 52158 
Page 9 
Counsel further reiterates her previous assertions that the education and exam requirements are 
outstanding achievements. We are not persuaded that a specific number of years of experience or 
advanced degrees are outstanding achievements, especially when an advanced degree is typical in the 
field. Rather, 10 years of experience and a degree can serve as evidence of exceptional ability 
pursuant to the lesser classification set forth at section 203(b)(2) of the Act. 8 C.F.R. 
$8 204.5(k)(ii)(A), (B). As addressed above, it is not clear that a written exam was required prior to 
2003. Even if the petitioner was required to pass an examination, such an examination merely 
demonstrates eligibility for certification/licensure in a specialty rather than an outstanding 
achievement in the field. By way of analogy, we are not persuaded that the bar examination required 
for bar membership in the legal profession is an outstanding achievement or that the Certified Public 
Accountant examination is an outstanding achievement for an accountant. 
Finally, the petitioner's role with the above societies, such as serving on a review committee, is more 
relevant to the judging and leading role criteria at 8 C.F.R. $204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (viii), discussed below. 
These roles do not relate to the plain language of this criterion, set forth at 8 C.F.R. $204.5(h)(3)(ii), 
which requires evidence of membership in an association that requires outstanding achievements of all 
its members regardless of their role. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in the Jield for which classlJication is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
The petitioner did not originally claim to meet this criterion although she did submit a list of articles 
that cite her own articles. The director's request for additional evidence advised that citations could not 
serve to meet this criterion as the citing articles are about the author's own work or recent trends in the 
field and not about the petitioner relating to her work. In response, the petitioner submitted articles 
regarding the sufficiency of breast milk during a baby's first six months that quotes the petitioner, 
recommendations for nursing listing the petitioner as a source, an article about sudden infant death 
syndrome that quotes the petitioner and an article in a regional publication about a tennis player's 
achievements indicating that the player's mother, the petitioner, "is doing research at N.C. State." 
The director did not specifically address this evidence and counsel reiterates that the petitioner meets 
this criterion on appeal. While the director should have addressed this evidence, we find that it cannot 
serve to meet the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). That regulation 
requires that the published material be "about the alien" relating to her work. As stated above, the 
articles which cite the petitioner are about the work of the authors. The remaining articles cannot be 
credibly asserted to be "about" the petitioner. They are about medical issues and cite her as the source 
of medical advice on those issues. They do not constitute journalistic coverage of her. In fact, they do 
not even appear to constitute coverage of her own "work" as they are not primarily reporting on the 
LIN 07 148 52158 
Page 10 
petitioner's research results in pediatric gastroenterology or gnotobiotics or her accomplishments as a 
professor or physician. Rather, the petitioner is simply the source of the medical consensus on the 
broad issues being discussed. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language 
requirements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. $204.5(h)(3)(iii) and, thus, does not meet this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an alliedjield of speciJication for which classzJication is sought. 
Counsel initially asserted that the petitioner meets this criterion through her peer review of abstracts for 
the Jornal Pediatria, participation in the committee to select full professors and fellows at UFMG, and 
her review of Master and doctoral dissertations. The petitioner submitted certifications of her 
participation in the selection of substituted professors for the Pediatric Department at UFMG in 1996, 
the selection of students for the medical school at UFMG and the examination of graduate dissertations 
at UFMG. The petitioner also submitted foreign language certificates from Jornal de Pediatria without 
complete certified translations, or any translations, as required by 8 C.F.R. Ej 103.2(b)(3). 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence of the selection criteria for the above review 
committees, the petitioner submitted letters from - ~ditor of the Jornal de Pediatria 
and 
 Coordinator of the Post Graduate Program at UFMG. - 
asserts that the journal "receives curricula vitae to select professionals that work in areas related to 
pediatrics to act as reviewers." further explains that the curriculum vitae are evaluated 
based on the candidate's degrees (preferably a Ph.D.), "Curriculo Lattes" registered on the National 
Counsel al and Scientific Development (CNPq) and articles published in relevant 
journals. confirms that the petitioner has performed many reviews for the journal since 
2000. The petitioner submitted materials indicating that CNPq is an agency involved in the promotion 
of scientific and technological research and the results of a search for the petitioner's name on the 
agency's database. The materials do not reveal how many names are contained in this database or the 
criteria for inclusion in the database. 
explains that dissertation committees include the student's advisor, one or two "intern" 
members of UFMG and one or two members from outside UFMG. According to 
 the 
advisor submits a list of names to the "collegiate program," which can accept the proposed members or 
suggest other names. The members must have a Ph.D. and "extensive knowledge in the field 
demonstrated by the number or quality of [her] publications in the scientific literature." The director 
concluded that the petitioner's review responsibilities did not set her apart from others in her field. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3)(iv) does not require evidence 
that the petitioner has reviewed a large number of manuscripts or served as an editor and that the 
evidence submitted does set the petitioner apart from others in her field. Counsel asserts that not all 
professors at UFMG participate on dissertation review committees, notes that members must have 
LIN 07 148 52158 
Page 11 
"extensive knowledge" in the field and asserts that Jornal de Pediatria is within the top 25 percent of 
medical journals in the world. 
The evidence submitted to meet this criterion, or any criterion, must be indicative of or consistent with 
sustained national or international acclaim. Accord Yasar v. DHS, 2006 WL 778623 "9 (S.D. Tex. 
March 24, 2006); All Pro Cleaning Services v. DOL et al., 2005 WL 4045866 *11 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 
26, 2005). We concur with the director that scientific journals are peer reviewed and rely on many 
scientists to review submitted articles. Thus, peer review is routine in the field and, by itself, is not 
indicative of or consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. We note that the director 
only provided examples of evidence that might set the petitioner apart from others in the field and did 
not suggest that such evidence was the only evidence that might meet this criterion. We concur with 
the director that without evidence that sets the petitioner apart from others in her field, including but not 
limited to evidence that she has reviewed manuscripts for a journal that credits a small, elite group of 
referees, received independent requests from a substantial number of journals, or served in an editorial 
position for a distinguished journal, we cannot conclude that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
We acknowledge that the petitioner did submit evidence in addition to peer review for a journal. 
Specifically, she submitted evidence that she served on review panels within UFMG where she was 
employed. In contrast to the wider reco nition that might, on a case-by-case basis, be indicated by the 
type of external review referenced in letter, the petitioner served only as an internal 
reviewer at UFMG. We are not persuaded that a professor's participation on a dissertation review 
committee at her own institution is indicative of or consistent with any recognition beyond her 
employer, let alone national or international acclaim. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
Initially, counsel relied on letters from the petitioner's close colleagues and collaborators to meet this 
criterion. Counsel also asserted that the petitioner had authored published abstracts, articles and book 
chapters, that the petitioner's work has been cited and that the petitioner has received grants and the 
1999 award. In response to the director's request for additional evidence, counsel asserted that the 
petitioner has "greatly impacted the field of gastroenterology." Counsel noted that the petitioner has 
published her work in internationally distributed journals and that the petitioner has received job offers 
from the University of Kentucky and the University of Georgetown. Counsel asserts that the job offers 
are evidence that "many leading experts in gastroenterology have sought the [petitioner's] collaboration 
and expertise." The petitioner submitted the letter from of the Graduate School of 
Arts and Sciences at Georgetown University, advising that the petitioner has been accepted as a visiting 
researcher with a fee of $250 per semester. The petitioner also submitted electronic mail 
correspondence between the petitioner and the University of Kentucky attempting to arrange a job 
interview as requested by the petitioner. 
 The record contains no evidence that the University of 
LIN 07 148 52158 
Page 12 
Kentucky sought out the petitioner as a job applicant independent of the petitioner's own inquiry or that 
the university ultimately offered the petitioner a job. Regardless, all of the correspondence with the 
University of Kentucky postdates the filing of the petition and cannot be considered. See 8 C.F.R. 
$5 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l. Comm'r. 1971). The petitioner 
also submitted new letters from close collaborators and colleagues. 
The director concluded that the record did not demonstrate that the petitioner's work "has influenced, 
or has been recognized by, others in her field to such a degree that it could be considered 
contributions of major significance." On appeal, counsel reiterates the statements in the petitioner's 
reference letters and notes that she presented abstracts at academic symposia, published articles in 
high ranking journals, authored book chapters, has been cited, and participated as a peer reviewer. 
The regulations contain a separate criterion regarding the authorship of published articles, 8 C.F.R. 
$ 204.5(h)(3)(vi), to be addressed below. We will not presume, however, that evidence relating to or 
even meeting the scholarly articles criterion is presumptive evidence that the petitioner also meets this 
criterion. To hold otherwise would render meaningless the statutory requirement for extensive 
evidence or the regulatory requirement that a petitioner meet at least three separate criteria. The 
petitioner previously submitted evidence of the impact factor of the journals that have published her 
articles and information in Wikepedia about the significance of a journal's "impact factor." As stated 
above, there are no assurances about the reliability of the content from this open, user-edited internet 
site.3 See Badasa, 540 F.3d at 909. Even if we considered the Wikipedia materials, under the 
heading "Misuse," the materials state that the impact factor "is often misused to predict the 
importance of an individual publication based on where it was published. This does not work well 
since a small number of publications are cited much more than the majority." Even without this 
information provided by the petitioner, we will not presume the influence of a given article based on 
the journal in which it appeared. Rather, it is the petitioner's burden to demonstrate the influence of 
the individual article. 
Similarly, awards are also considered under a separate criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
For the reasons discussed above, the petitioner has not demonstrated that she meets that criterion. 
We will not presume that evidence insufficient to meet that criterion is presumptive evidence to meet 
the contributions criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
Regardless of the petitioner's position as a professor and experience as a medical practitioner, the 
contributions claimed are clinical research contributions. There would be little point in publishing 
clinical research that did not add to the general pool of knowledge in the field. According to the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not only original but of 
major significance. We must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, 
thus, that it has some meaning. To be considered a contribution of major significance in the field of 
Online content from Wikipedia is subject to the general disclaimer set forth in footnote 2 of this decision. 
See httu://en.wikipedia.or~wiki/Wiki~edia:Genera disclaimer, accessed on August 26, 2009, a copy of 
which is incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
LIN 07 148 52158 
Page 13 
medical science/clinical research, it can be expected that the results would have already been 
reproduced and confirmed by other experts and applied in their work. Otherwise, it is difficult to 
gauge the impact of the petitioner's work. 
The opinions of experts in the field, while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a 
successful claim of sustained national or international acclaim. 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 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. 
USCIS may even give less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated, in accord with other 
information or is in any way questionable. Id. at 795; see also Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 
165 (Comm'r. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l. 
Comm'r. 1 972)). 
In evaluating the reference letters, we note that letters containing mere assertions of widespread 
acclaim and vague claims of contributions are less persuasive than letters that specifically identify 
contributions and provide specific examples of how those contributions have influenced the field. 
In addition, letters from independent references who were previously aware of the petitioner through 
her reputation and who have applied her work are the most persuasive. Ultimately, evidence in 
existence prior to the preparation of the petition carries greater weight than new materials prepared 
especially for submission with the petition. An individual with sustained national or international 
acclaim should be able to produce unsolicited materials reflecting that acclaim. 
The petitioner submitted several letters from colleagues at the institutions where she has worked. Dr. 
explains that Giardia was a very prevalent protozoan in Brazil, provoking a malabsorption 
syndrome in some children but no symptoms in others. The petitioner investigated the hypothesis that 
the type and number of the intestinal microbiota determine the clinical manifestation of the disease 
through the "original idea" of using germ-free animals and a strain of Giardia lamblia. 
discusses the skills the petitioner had to master and the challenges of transporting the strains. 
further ex lains that the only germ-fiee facility in South America is at the laboratory of 
d at UFMG. 
 affirms that the petitioner's study was the first time that w Giardia 
was studied in a germ-free animal and the first time that the role of microbiota in gnotexenic mice 
infected with Giardia was studied. explains that the petitioner demonstrated that Giardia 
needs the presence of the microbiota to become a pathogen and that the severit of the disease in 
mice is different depending on the number and type of bacteria inoculated. h does not 
explain how this work has impacted the study of Giardia or the use of germ-free animals in research. 
 ina all^^ asserts that the petitioner's clinical resw returning to Brazil after her time 
in North Carolina focused on constipation in children. asserts that during this time, the 
- 
petitioner authored "five original, ground-breaking research projects on constipation which 
LIN 07 148 52158 
Page 14 
investigated many aspects of chronic functional constipation from prevalence through long follow- 
ups of th 
 n to study the emotional profile of the mothers of chronically constipated 
children." 
 does not explain the impact of this work. 
In a subsequent letter, asserts that the petitioner "has made a ground-breaking scientific 
contribution in which she studied the pathogenesis of Giardia in germ-free animals with the objective 
to better understand the recurrent giardiasis in childhood." (Emphasis in original.) He confirms that 
the petitioner conducted all of the experiments and praises her leadership capacity, innovative 
personality, and ability to overcome obstacles. While he asserts that the petitioner showed for the 
first time in literature the relationship between the protozoa and the intestinal microbiota, he does not 
explain how these results have impacted the field. As stated above, the petitioner must demonstrate 
that her work was not merely original, but also of major significance. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
In a third letter, 
 asserts that the petitioner "is one of the pioneering researchers in 
constipation in Brazil and nowadays, she is considered a worldwide expert in this field." He notes 
that she is one of several coauthors of a 1983 book chapter and a 2005 book chapter in a book that 
"became one of the major references for Pediatricians and medical studies in many medical schools 
in our country." Similar assertions are contained in a letter from 
 Professor Emeritus 
at UFMG. The record contains several book chapters authored by the petitioner. Although the 2005 
chapter is in a foreign language, we note that of the 18 references listed at the end of the chapter, 
none of them represent work published by the petitioner. Thus, while the petitioner may have 
coauthored a chapter in this reference text, the research referenced in the chapter does not appear to 
be her own. Thus, this chapter cannot demonstrate the impact of her own research. Rather, the 
petitioner's book chapters are best considered under the scholarly articles criterion, 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3)(vi), discussed below. 
I, an associate professor at UFMG, asserts that she has 
collaborated with the petitioner and reviewed her published work. further asserts 
generally that the petitioner's "contributions for the work and for the publications have been of 
invaluable help for -improving and assisting the Gastroenterology Center, specifically the ambulatory 
for constipated children and adolescents." concludes that the petitioner's contribution to 
the study of constipation "is recognized in our institution and around the whole of Brazil." 
mprovides no examples of the petitioner's impact, such as new treatment methods or other 
studies using the petitioner's work as their foundation. 
at UFMG, asserts that he knew the petitioner as a graduate 
student and collaborator. 
 explains that the petitioner's Master of Science thesis compared 
experimental infection in germfree and conventional mice, demonstrating that indigenous microbiota 
is indispensable for the pathogenesis of Giardia duodenalis but not for its multiplication in the 
digestive tract. further explains that the petitioner's doctoral research involved the 
isolation of specific components of the indigenous microbiota responsible for the stimulation of G. 
duodenalis pathogenesis and study of the humoral immunological response during the experimental 
LIN 07 148 52158 
Page 15 
infection in both germ-free and conventional mice. 
 concludes that the petitioner has 
experience in parasitology, immunology, and microbiology "in terms of basic and experimental 
knowledge" and recommends her for "any postgraduate program or position in a Research Institute." 
oined his laboratory in the early 1990's under the guidance of 
explains that the petitioner used the laboratory's gnotobiology 
facilities to cany out a project on iardiasis in gem-free mice, generating her graduate theses and 
several publications. Dr. d concludes that the petitioner demonstrated "competence, 
intelligence, honesty, diligence, and a strong drive to research." The petitioner also provided a 
similar general letter from Dr. 
None of the Brazilian references explain how the petitioner's work with Giardia or constipation has 
impacted either field. For example, they do not reference new treatments or research that has 
originated from the petitioner's work. While the petitioner published the results of this work, only 
one of her articles coauthored with the above references is cited by more than one independent 
research team. While one article regarding Giardia had been cited seven times by independent 
research teams as of the date of filing, the petitioner has not demonstrated that this citation level is 
significant. In addition, while the petitioner presented the abstract of her work with Giardia at a 
symposium where she was recognized with an award, for the reasons discussed above, the petitioner 
has not demonstrated the significance of this award. The petitioner has also not demonstrated the 
significance of presenting her work as an abstract rather than as a full oral presentation. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the etitioner submitted a letter from Dr. 
, an associate professor at Georgetown University. asserts that he has followed 
the petitioner's work and that "[klnowing about her work led to my own studies into the effects of 
bacteria on the ability of this parasite to infect some animals and not others." He further asserts that he 
and the petitioner have jointly developed research proposals. does not specificall ex lain 
how his work was impacted by the petitioner or explain what he has added to her results. 
does not claim to have cited the petitioner's work or provide examples of his own articles for which the 
petitioner's work served as the foundation. 
of irritable bowel diseases (IBD) in germ-free rodents and that they were fortunate to have the 
petitioner join the group because of her experience working with germ-fiee animals. According to 
- 
the petitioner worked with a rodent model developed by another researcher. Dr. 
that the petitioner evaluated "the levels of messenger RNA for an array of 
critical c okines that are expressed in either inflamed or non-inflamed colonic tissue." 
 Dr. 
d asserts that the petitioner's work was "an integral part" of the team's subsequent 
publication for which the petitioner is a listed coauthor. asserts that this worked for 
the basis for new research published by the team after the petitioner's return to Brazil but does not 
assert that it has impacted independent research laboratories. 
LIN 07 148 52158 
Page 16 
motes that the UNC has a unique Gnotobiotic Rodent Facility in which rodents can be 
colonized with specific intestinal bacteria, allowing "an elegant way to precisely manipulate the 
intestinal microbial environment." oncludes that the petitioner "has developed an in- 
depth understandin of how to use this unique gnotobiotic facility to study genetically engineered 
transgenic rats. " does not explain how the petitioner's results in his laboratory have 
impacted the field. 
While the petitioner's research is no doubt of value and has earned her the respect of her immediate 
circle of colleagues, it can be argued that any research must be shown to be original and present 
some benefit if it is to receive funding and attention from the scientific community. Any thesis or 
other research, in order to be accepted for graduation, publication or funding, must offer new and 
useful information to the pool of knowledge. It does not follow that every researcher who performs 
original research that adds to the general pool of knowledge has inherently made a contribution of 
major significance to the field as a whole. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorsh@ of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The petitioner has authored several abstracts, published articles, and book chapters. The Department of 
Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2008-2009 (accessed at www.bls.gov/oco on August 26 
2009 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.~ov/oco/ocos066.htm. The handbook expressly states that faculty members are pressured to 
perform 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 This information reveals that original published research does 
not set a professor apart from other faculty. Nevertheless, two of the petitioner's articles have been 
moderately cited and the petitioner's references confirm that the books to which she has contributed are 
common medical texts in Brazilian medical schools. Thus, we are persuaded that the petitioner meets 
this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
Counsel relies on the petitioner's participation with several committees at UFMG coordinating courses, 
revising curricula and evaluating prospective students and professors. The petitioner also served as a 
member of the "board of the Commission for Didactic Coordination." 
The director concluded that the petitioner had not demonstrated that her roles set her apart from senior 
faculty. On appeal, counsel asserts that the director failed to consider the evidence of record, including 
LIN 07 148 52158 
Page 17 
assertion that the petitioner was a "member of the Board of Administrators" and a 
"residency advisor" and the petitioner's recognition at UFMG graduation events. Finally, counsel 
addresses the petitioner's research while working at UFMG and in North Carolina. 
The petitioner's alleged research contributions have already been considered above. At issue for this 
criterion are the roles the petitioner was selected to fill and the reputation of the entity that selected her. 
In other words, the nature of the roles must be such that selection for the roles must be indicative of or 
consistent with national or international acclaim. We do not question the distinguished reputation 
enjoyed by UFMG. The record contains a 2007 publication that lists the hierarchy of UFMG. The 
hierarchy includes a "reitor," vice "reitora," director and vice director of the faculty of medicine, a 
coordinator and vice coordinator of the postgraduate program, a chief of the Department of Pediatrics 
and another coordinator and vice coordinator. The petitioner is not listed as filling any of these 
positions. The record does not establish that her articipation on various committees at UFMG sets her 
apart from the remaining faculty. does not explain the nature of the "Board of 
Administrators" or where it fits in the hierarchy of UFMG. While the petitioner submitted several 
declarations from UFMG affirming her role on various committees, none of them mention a "Board of 
Administrators." 
Without additional evidence explaining the nature of the committees and an organizational chart 
demonstrating the petitioner's position within the university's hierarchy, we cannot conclude that the 
petitioner meets this criterion. 
Finally, the conclusion we reach by considering the evidence to meet each criterion separately is 
consistent with a review of the evidence in the aggregate. Even in the aggregate, the evidence 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, a professor, relies on research grants, an award fiom the host of an 
international symposium with undocumented significance, medical licensure, publication record, 
service as a peer reviewer. service on various universitv committees at the institution where she is 
- - 
employed, and the praise of her immediate circle of eers. 
 is the director of the medical 
school at UFMG and an editor of several journals. w was Head of the Biochemistry and 
Immunology Department at UFMG and has edited several books. is the Director of the 
National Gnotobiotic Rodent Resource Center, served as Chair of the Grants Review Committee of the 
Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of America and served as an editor for two journals. is 
director of the Immunology Graduate Program at NC State. Thus, it appears that the highest level of 
the petitioner's field is far above the level she has attained. 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage 
who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished herself as a 
medical scientist to such an extent that she may be said to have achieved sustained national or 
LIN 07 148 52158 
Page 18 
international acclaim or to be wihn the small percentage at the very top of her field. The evidence 
indicates that the petitioner shows talent as a medical scientist/clinical researcher, but is not persuasive 
that the petitioner's achievements set her significantly above almost all others in her field. Therefore, 
the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition 
may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.