dismissed EB-1A Case: Pharmaceutical Research

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W.. Rm. 43042 
PUBLIC COPY 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE : EAC 04 033 5 1994 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: JUL 1 5 2005 
IN RE: 
Beneficia 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 I53(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. 
W~obert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 04 033 5 1994 
Page 2 
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 dismissedl. 
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. § 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. 3 204.5(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 engaged in 
pharmaceutical research. The petitioner submitted supporting documents including ten recommendatian letters, 
evidence of 12 articles he co-authored that were published in scientific journals, documentatiol~ of his 
participation in two scientific conferences, copies of his academic degrees, a copy of his "outstanding paper 
award," a document related to a patent application of which the petitioner is listed as a co-inventor, and an 
electronic mail message requesting the petitioner to review manuscripts for a scientific conference. The director 
noted the petitioner's accomplishments, but found the record did not demonstrate that the petitioner had earned 
the sustained acclaim requisite to classification as an alien with extraordinary ability. On appeal, counsel 
submits a brief, the petitioner's curriculum vitae, and copies of four articles co-authored by the petitionel-. Three 
of these articles were published 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 at a future date after the 
EAC 04 03 3 5 1994 
Page 3 
petitioner becomes eligible under a new set facts. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(12), Matter of Katigbtzk, 14 I&N 
Dec. 45,49 (Comm. 1971). 
We first note counsel's claim (made on to three of his appellate brief) that "the Vermont Service 
Center, in implementing its decision to [sic] is simply denying all petitions, like this one with 
boilerplate letters. . . . This new sacrificing consideration of the merits of each case for 
the expediency of decreasing and immoral." Counsel discounts the director's 
review of the supporting in her decision. Although 8 C.F.R. fj 103.2(b)(8) 
requires the director to "where there is no evidence of ineligibility, 
and initial evidence or is not required to issue a request for 
further information in determines that the initial evidence 
supports a decision of of further documentation. 
Furthermore, even if the director had commi a procedural error by failing to solicit further evidence. The 
petitioner has in fact supplemented the on appeal and the AAO has considered all the evidence in 
reaching a decision. Therefore it no useful purpose to remand the case simply to afford the 
petitioner the opportunity to with new evidence. 
Counsel's remaining contentions, the eviden submitted and the director's decision are addressed in the 
following discussion of the regulatory criteria to the petitioner's case. 
(i! Documentation of the alien's receipt of esser nationally or internationally recognizedprizes or awards 
for excellence in the$eld of endeavor. 
The director correctly determined that the did not meet this criterion. The petitioner submitted a copy 
of a certificate that reads: "American 
Eastern Regional Meeting June 22-23, 
counsel described this certificate as an 
[,I Outstanding Paper Award[,] 
A n page four of his initial brief, 
" but the record did not include a copy 
I 
. . 
or abstract of the petitioner's winning paper r any documentation of the significance of this honor or its 
national or international recognition as a prize r award for excellence in the petitioner's field. Accordingly, the 
director stated, "[aln academic award, such as he Excellent Student Poster Award described by the attorney is 
not considered to be evidence of sustained nati nal or international acclaim. The Outstanding Paper A.ward . . . 
has not been described in terms of its significan e as a nationally or internationally recognized prize." 
On appeal, counsel first claims that "[vlery cle this type of documentation has to be solicited via iin WE." 
There is no need to issue an RFE when the needed is explicitly stated in the regulation. We would 
expect counsel to be familiar with the regulatory criterion as an attorney who (on page one of 
his appellate brief) claims to have and beneficiaries under section 203(b)(:l)(A) of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1153(b)(l)(A), counsel merely states: 
Assuming that it is not national is not an op ion. The award should be taken on face value. In fact, we 
would be hard put to know what other doc mentation to provide. Most people in academia know that 
"Best Poster Award" means that the winner 1 ad the best poster at a conference. The conference was the 
MPS (American Association for Pharmaceutical Science) annual meeting. You would have to be 
pretty dense to assume that something called the "American Association" wasn't a national 
EAC 04 033 5 1994 
Page 4 
organization. This was an award given at national conferences, as clearly shown in the docume.ntation 
and was based on presentations, not academic achievement. 
First, the burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1361. Furthermore, as noted in our preliminary discussion on page two, counsel is concerned 
that "non-technical lay people are making decisions about highly advanced scientists," yet he nonetheless 
assumes that the director would have the same understanding about this type of award as "most people in 
academia." Second, counsel's comments reflect that he himself has not carefully read the submitted 
evidence. The petitioner's certificate states that it was awarded at the Eastern Regional Meeting of AAPS. If 
"taken on face value," as urged by counsel, the award is regional, not national. Counsel also c:ryptically 
refers to "conferences" and "presentations" in the plural. The record contains evidence that the petitioner 
participated in two other scientific conferences, but only received one award at the 2000 AAPS Eastern 
Regional Meeting. 
We note that the petitioner's curriculum vitae submitted on appeal suggests, but does not establish, that this 
award was granted for a paper entitled "The Expression Patterns of PPAR and RXR Isoforms in the Rat 
Developing and Human Placentas." Yet the submitted certificate does not identify the paper for which the 
petitioner was honored. This omission, along with the lack of any evidence regarding the selection criteria 
and significance of the petitioner's honor, prevents the award from meeting this criterion. 
(iii) Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media, 
relating to the alien's work in the field for which classz$cation is sought. Such evidence shall include the 
title, date, and author of the material, and any necessaty translation. 
Although the petitioner submitted no evidence relevant to this criterion, the director briefly discussed the 
petitioner's publications and support letters as evidence under this category and concluded that "[t]l.ie record 
contains insufficient evidence that others have cited the beneficiary's work to a degree that would be iindicative 
of his claimed sustained national or international acclaim." In fact, the record contains no evidence that other 
researchers in his field have cited the petitioner's publications. The director's error has not prejudiced the 
petitioner, however, because he submits no evidence relevant to this category and consequently does not meet 
this criterion. 
(iv) Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work cf others 
in the same or an aIlied$eld of speczfication for which classification is sought. 
The petitioner submitted an electronic mail message from his former doctoral supervisor requesting him to 
review abstracts for the 2004 National Biotechnology Conference, but no evidence that he complied with the 
request and actually reviewed abstracts for the conference. The director correctly stated that the record 
contained no evidence of the petitioner's judgment of the work of others in his field. On appeal, counsel 
concedes that "[tlhis was not a category where significant evidence was offered." Accordingly, the petitioner 
does not meet this criterion. 
(v) Evidence ofthe alien's original scientzfic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of 
major signzjicance in the field. 
The director addressed the petitioner's support letters and publications and correctly determined that they did 
EAC 04 033 5 1994 
Page 5 
not evidence his eligibility under this criterion. On page five of his appellate brief, counsel clairns that the 
director "IGNORES the primary evidence of original scientific contributions, the publications and (conference 
presentations, ignores the secondary evidence, the letters, and even the conference award that petitioner won and 
reverts to a boilerplate blather that is now appearing in every Extraordinary denial" (emphasis in original). 
Counsel also takes issue with the director's comment that "[ilt is generally expected that an individual whose 
accomplishments have garnered sustained national or international acclaim would have received recognition for 
his accomplishments well beyond the circle of his acquaintances, especially in view of the extremely restrictive 
immigrant category that has been requested." On page seven of his appellate brief, counsel contends that 
"[rlequiring evidence that pre-existed the preparation of the petition is an ad hoc requirement that as [sic] no 
basis whatsoever in either the statute or the case law. It is, in fact, utter nonsense, and only an excuse for the 
Service examiner not to have to read the actual evidence that was provided. . . . The made-up law and bypassing 
of obviously probative evidence is unconscionable, and if sustained by the AAU, will certainly result in Federal 
Action." Counsel misconstrues the director's decision and his threat of federal litigation is needlessly 
inflammatory. 
The petitioner submitted ten recommendation letters from his current and past supervisors, colleagues and other 
scientists in his field who are familiar with his research. While such letters provide relevant information about 
an alien's experience and accomplishments, they cannot by themselves establish the alien's eligibility under 
this criterion because they do not demonstrate that the alien's work is of major significance in his 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 sustained 
national or international acclaim. We recognize, as noted by counsel on pages six and seven of his appellate 
brief, that top researchers in a given specialty often meet at scientific conferences and are familiar with each 
others' work. We are not discounting the petitioner's recommendation letters because the authors know the 
petitioner or are familiar with his research. Rather, we review the letters as they relate to other evidence of 
the petitioner's contributions. As counsel himself acknowledges, the letters are "secondary evidence" of the 
petitioner's contributions whereas his publications and conference presentations are "primary evidence" of 
his eligibility under this criterion. 
The record indicates that prior to his arrival in the United States, the petitioner was employed in the 
Department of Pharmacology within the Institute of Basic Medical Science at the Chinese Academy of 
Medicinal Sciences in Beijing. Only one recommendation letter mentions the petitioner's previous work in 
China. Dr. Gregory T. Knipp. Assistant Professor of Pharmaceutics and the petitioner's doctoral advisor at 
Rutgers University, states that the petitioner had "a considerable reputation as a research scientist in China, 
where he had published some important papers in the field [of] postmenopausal osteoporosis." The record 
contains copies of nine articles (and their English abstracts) co-authored by the petitioner that were published 
in Chinese scientific journals from 1998 through 2000. The petitioner is the lead author of one of these 
articles. The record contains no evidence that these articles have been widely cited by other researchers or 
otherwise recognized as documenting contributions of major significance to this field in a manner reflective 
of sustained national acclaim in China or international acclaim abroad. 
As stated by Professor Knipp, the petitioner began his doctoral studies at Rutgers University in 1998 and joined 
Professor Knipp's laboratory in 1999. Professor Knipp explains that the petitioner's "work in [his] laboratory 
began by investigating the expression patterns of proteins that regulate essential fatty acid transfer across the 
placenta from the mother to the fetus. . . . [The petitioner's] research revealed important patterns of expl-ession 
EAC 04 033 5 1994 
Page 6 
of several proteins that can be utilized as therapeutic targets to correct placental fatty acid transfer where there 
may be a detrimental effect on fetal development. In particular, these studies were performed for future work on 
investigating the role of LCFA [long-chain fatty acids] transport across the placenta and fetal neurological 
development. This work was published in the journal Placenta, which is the highest-ranking journal in the 
placental research field." Other letters attest to the importance of this research. Dr. Thomas J. Cook., Assistant 
Professor of Pharmaceutics at Rutgers who co-authored one of the other submitted articles with the petitioner, 
also notes that the petitioner's work was published in Placenta. Dr. Shi Liu, Senior Scientist a.t the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), explains that the petitioner's "work has demonstrated the regulation 
mechanism of fatty acid transport in placenta and the original work was published in the journal 'I'lacenta."' 
Dr. Liu opines that "[tlhis work clearly meets the standard of national importance required for the National 
Interest Waiver," (suggesting that his letter was written to support a petition filed under section 203(b)(2)(B) of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1 153(b)(2)(B), rather than this petition). 
The record contains a copy of the article referenced in the letters, which is titled "Expression of PPAR and RXR 
Isoforms in the Developing Rat and Human Term Placentas." The petitioner is the lead author of this article that 
was published in 2002 in Placenta. Yet the record is devoid of any evidence that this article has been widely 
cited or otherwise recognized in the petitioner's field as a major contribution. We note that the record suggests, 
but does not establish, that the petitioner received the "Outstanding Paper Award" at the AAPS Eastern 
Regional Meeting in 2000 for a manuscript based on this research. 
Professor Knipp explains that the petitioner's subsequent research as a doctoral student "focused on one 
potential protein-Fatty Acid Translocase (FAT/CD36), which is believed to play a major role in the onset of 
atherosclerosis and diabetes. . . . [The petitioner] established several FATlCD36-transfected cell lines to 
characterize LCFA transport in in vitro models. His results clearly indicated that FATlCD36-positive cells had 
significantly higher LCFA uptake than cells lacking FATICD36." Professor Knipp states that, based on the drug 
development potential of this work, "we have already filed a patent on one mode of therapeutic intervention 
with several other provisional patents now in the planning stages," that "four drafts of manuscripts . . . have been 
prepared and are planned for publication," that "an invited review was extended to us from the Journal of 
Pharmaceutical Sciences based on these studies," and that he is currently preparing a "NIH grant submission on 
the gastrointestinal transport characterization of fatty acid transporters." 
Other letters also discuss the significance of the petitioner's work in this area. Professor Cook affirms that the 
petitioner's work "has expanded our understanding of fatty acid uptake and consequent utilization in drug 
development. These investigations are fundamental to the identification process of the lipid metabolisrn and/or 
target for obesity and diabetes. This research could progress to the point were [sic] we are able to apply that 
knowledge to the development of effective clinical treatment with implications for human health via dietary 
interventions." Dr. Brian Gray, Vice President of Chemical Research at PTI Research Incorporated explains that 
he first met the petitioner as a graduate student at Rutgers and claims that his "broad knowledge of ceilular as 
well as molecular biology place him in the top tier of research scientists in the field of xenobioticslendobiotics 
transport processes, specifically in the field of fatty acid translocase (FATICD 36) and the mechanism by which 
FATICD36 functions." Dr. Gray notes three significant accomplishments of the petitioner's work in this area: 
"(i) understanding the fundamentals by which fatty acids are transported, (ii) establishment of new in vttro cell 
models for further investigation, and, (iii) casting new light on drug development to block unnecessary fatty acid 
uptake, which is directly related with hypertension and cardiovascular diseases." A. Scott Mathis, a ~slinical 
pharmacist and researcher at the Saint Barnabas Medical Center in New Jersey, explains that he rnet the 
petitioner through his collaboration with the petitioner's doctoral supervisor, Professor Knipp. Mr. Mathis 
EAC 04 03 3 5 1994 
Page 7 
states that his "primary interest is on the development of atherosclerosis and diabetes after transplantation. 
Through work stimulated by Dr. Wang's research program, Dr. Knipp and 1 have been able to show that the 
immunosuppressive agents affect CD36 and related receptors." Mr. Mathis also notes that the petitioner is 
"generally considered to be one of the most knowledgeable people in the world on fatty acid uptake." The 
importance of the petitioner's work and his expertise in this area is similarly discussed in the letters ofDr. Susan 
Bogdanowich-Knipp, Associate Principal Scientist at the Schering-Plough Research Institute; Dr. Jay Zhang, an 
lnvestigator at GlaxoSmithkline; and Dr. Bo Zhou, Chief Executive Officer of Precursor Chemicals 
Incorporated, a company involved in basic research of chemical compounds synthesis. 
The record contains little corroborative evidence of the claimed significance of the petitioner's work on fatty 
acid uptake. The record contains a copy of just one article related to the petitioner's work in this area, entitled 
"Spatial Expression Patterns of Peptide Transporters in the Human and Rat Gastrointestinal Tracts, Caco-2 In 
Vitro Cell Culture Model, and Multiple Human Tissues." The petitioner is a co-author of this article that was 
published in 2001 in a journal, which is only identified as "AAPS Pharmsci." The record also contains evidence 
that the petitioner was the lead author of a paper entitled "A Novel Method to Delineate the Long-Chain Fatty 
Acid Mediated Uptake by Fatfcd36" that was presented as a poster at the 2003 AAPS Annual Meeting. 
However, the record is devoid of any evidence that the petitioner's poster presentation or his co-authored article 
have been widely cited or otherwise recognized as major contributions to his field. 
The record also contains a document from the Rutgers University Office of Research and Sponsored Program, 
which appears to summarize the patent application referred to in Professor Knipp's letter. The petitioner is 
listed as a co-inventor. The record contains no evidence that this patent has been granted or that the documented 
invention has otherwise been recognized as a major contribution to the field. Even if the patent had been 
awarded, it alone would not meet this criterion. To establish eligibility under this category by virtue of patents, 
a petitioner must not only show that his work has been granted a patent. but that the patented invention 
constitutes a scientific contribution of major significance in his field. As our office has stated, the significance 
of the patented invention must be determined on a case-by-case basis. See Matter of New York State .Dep't. of 
Transp., 22 I&N Dec. 2 15,22 1 n.7 (Comm. 1998). 
On appeal, the petitioner submitted the author proof of an article entitled "Expression of PPAR and RXR 
lsoforms and Fatty Acid Transporting Proteins in the Rat and Human Gastrointestinal Tracts" of which the 
petitioner is the lead author. This article is apparently in press at the Journal of Pharmacezitical Scierices, but 
was not published at the time of filing. Consequently, it cannot be considered. The petitioner must establish 
eligibility at the time of filing; a petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible 
under a new set of facts. See 8 C.F.R. 9 103.2(b)(12), Matter of Katig-bak, 14 l&N Dec. at 49. 
The record also does not corroborate the claimed significance of the petitioner's recent work at 0 
pharmaceutical research institution in Exton, Pennsylvania. Dr. Ismael J. Hidalgo, Chief Scientist at 
Systems, explains that he has known the petitioner since 2001 when the petitioner was a graduate 
student at Rutgers. Dr. Hidalgo states that "[slince joining our organization, [the petitioner] has been trying to 
construct a series of in vitro cell models with over-expression of multidrug resistance-associated protelhs. . . . 
Based on the preliminary results of his work, we submitted [a] grant. . . to the National Health Institute." 
The record contains a copy of an article entitled "Cryopreserved Human Hepatocytes as Alternative lir Vitro 
Model for Cytochrome P450 Induction Studies" of which the petitioner is a co-author that was published in the 
July/August 2003 edition of In Vitro Cellular and Developmental Biology -Animal. The record documents that 
EAC 04 033 5 1994 
Page 8 
the petitioner was the co-author of a paper presented as a poster at the 2003 AAPS Annual Meeting and the sole 
author of a paper presented at the "ISSX 12"' North American Meeting" in October 2003. Yet the record is 
devoid of any evidence that the petitioner's conference papers or journal article have been widely cited or 
otherwise recognized in his field as documenting major contributions. On appeal, the petitioner submitted 
proofs of two articles concerning his recent research that are apparently in press for two scientific journals, but 
were not published at the time of filing and consequently cannot be considered. Again, the petit.ioner must 
establish eligibility at the time of filing; a petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner 
becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(12), Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
In sum, the evidence indicates that the petitioner's work is well regarded by the authors of his recom~nendation 
letters, but the value they impart to his research is not borne out by corroborative documentation. The petitioner 
has submitted copies of nine articles published in Chinese scientific journals. The record is devoid of any 
evidence that these articles have been widely cited or otherwise recognized as documenting major cor~tributions 
to the field and only one of the petitioner's recommendation letters briefly mentions the work he cortducted in 
China. After his arrival in the United States the petitioner published two articles in scientific: journals 
concerning his doctoral research. The petitioner is the lead author of one of these articles. As previously 
mentioned under the first criterion, the petitioner also won an "Outstanding Paper Award" for an unidentified 
portion of his graduate work that was presented at a regional scientific conference in 2000. The recorcl contains 
a copy of one additional journal article co-authored by the petitioner concerning his subsequent research at 
Absorption Systems. The petitioner has also presented three papers concerning his graduate and subsequent 
work at two scientific conferences. However, the record is devoid of any evidence that the petitioner's articles 
or conference papers have been widely cited or otherwise recognized as making major contributions tc~ his field 
in a manner reflective of sustained national or international acclaim. Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet 
this criterion. 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholurly 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. On appeal, counsel contends 
that the director's decision "is truly an atrocity. Given the plain English meaning of the statutory requirement, a 
petitioner qualifies here if he has TWO PUBLICATIONS. This examiner ignores the fact that the petitioner has 
22." While it is true that the regulation imposes no numeric requirement on an alien's publications, we cannot 
ignore that 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. 
For this reason, 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 in a 
manner reflective of the requisite sustained acclaim. 
In this case, the record shows that at the time of filing the petitioner had co-authored 12 articles published in 
scientific journals. He is the lead author of two of these articles. As previously explained, we cannot consider 
the evidence regarding the petitioner's subsequent three articles because they were not published at the time of 
filing. The petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing. See 8 C.F.R. fj 103.2(b)(12), Mrztfer of 
Kutzgbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. The record documents the petitioner's presentation of three papers at scientific 
conferences, but there is no evidence that these papers have been published. Hence, the record does not support 
counsel's claim that the petitioner has 22 publications. Without documentary evidence to support the claim, the 
assertions of counsel will not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. The unsupported assertions of counsel do 
EAC 04 033 5 1994 
Page 9 
not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988); Matter oflaureano, 19 1&N 
Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Mutter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). 
The record is devoid of any evidence that the petitioner's journal articles have been consistently cited or 
otherwise recognized as particularly significant bq' other researchers in his field. Consequently, the petitioner 
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 correctly determined that the petitioner did not meet this criterion. On appeal, counsel contends 
that the director "essentially ignores the fact that both Rutgers University and Absorption Systems are 
distinguished institutions, and that the petitioner was and is a leading researcher at each of them. . . . His 
standing at these two institutions was, of course ignored. . . . There are prior decisions that state CIS cannot 
presume expertise in a field where they obviously have none. Recent decisions from CIS, including thrs one are 
flaunting the law, and making a travesty of our immigration process, violating 5" Amendment Due process [sic], 
and putting expediency above duty." Counsel substitutes inflammatory comments for sufficient documentation 
of the petitioner's eligibility under this criterion. 
To meet this criterion, a petitioner must establish the nature of the alien's role within the entire organization or 
establishment and the reputation of the organization or establishment. Where an alien has a leading or critical 
role for a section of a distinguished organization or establishment, the petitioner must establish the reputation of 
that section independent of the organization itself. No such documentation was provided in this case. Although 
Professor Knipp explained the value and importance of the work performed by the petitioner as a doctoral 
student in his laboratory, he did not state that the petitioner played a leading or critical role in his laboratory or 
for Rutgers University as a whole. Professor Cook also did not describe the petitioner as having such a role, 
rather he simply noted that the petitioner "demonstrated leadership skills" as a graduate student at Rutgers. 
Moreover, the petitioner is the lead author of only one published article concerning his graduate work at Rutgers 
and the record contains no evidence that this publication earned recognition of the petitioner as a cr~ltical or 
leading figure at Rutgers. The record is also devoid of any independent evidence that Professor Icnipp's 
laboratory, the Department of Pharmaceutics, or the School of Pharmacy within Rutgers Universiiy have 
distinguished reputations. 
insufficient to establish the petitioner's eligibility by virtue of his present pos~tion at 
Dr. Bruce Aungst, Director of Biopharn~aceutics and Drug Transport at- 
t the petitioner "fills a ke role in carrying out the research projects undertaken at 
. . . iecruited him because of his unique abilities to perform 
h and eve opment ~nvestigations." Dr. Hidalgo. Chief Scientist at Absomtion S~,stems. - 
describes the petitioner as "a top-flight researchkr and one of the foremost experts in multid;ug resEt ance- 
associated proteins research in the world. This is why we recruited him to work for our company." However, 
neither Dr. Aungst or Dr. Hidalgo state the petitioner's exact position at their company or describe specifically 
how the petitioner's work places him in a crucial or leading role. At the time of filing, the petitioner had co- - - 
lished article and presented two conference papers regarding research perfomled at 
The record ese manuscripts garnered recognition for the 
critical figure at In addition, the record contains no independent 
evidence that Absorption Systems has a di Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this 
EAC 04 033 5 1994 
Page 10 
criterion. 
(ix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signiJicantly high remunczration for 
services, in relation to others in the field. 
The director correctly determined that the petitioner 
his weekly wages as $1,202. Dr. Hidalgo states that 1 package worth six figures." Yet the record contains 
.erion. The petitioner's Form 1-140 lists 
6 is paying the petitioner "a total benefit 
,n of the petitioner's income or evidence 
that his salary is significantly higher than other researchers in his field employed by private con~panies or 
comparable to researchers at the very top of his field Rather than provide such documentation tsn appeal, 
counsel simply quotes the director's statement that beyond the brief comments of counsel and Dr. Hidalgo, "no 
information regarding compensation has been furnished." Counsel responds, "Duh! When I read stuff like this, 
I really wonder about my fellow Americans." Counsel then cites Dr. Hidalgo's letter as sufficient evidence. 
However, the record is devoid of any primary evidence of the petitioner's salary or documentation that his 
compensation is significantly higher than that of other researchers similarly employed or comparable to 
researchers at the very top of his field. Going on record without supporting evidence is not sufficient to meet 
the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soflci, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter 
of Treasure Craft of Cali$, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 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. 9 1 153(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 field. The evidence in this case 
indicates that the petitioner has made valuable contributions to pharmaceutical research, but the record does not 
establish that the petitioner has achieved sustained national or international acclaim as a scientist placi~ig 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. 5 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. 9 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be 
dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed