dismissed EB-1A Case: Pharmacist

(b)(6)
DATE: OCT 1' 4 Z014 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http:Uwww.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.P.R.§ 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
~ 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. We will dismiss the 
appeal. 
According to part 2 of the petition, the petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary 
ability" in the sciences, pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A).1 According to part 6 of the petition, the proposed employment is as a 
pharmacist, which is the petitioner's current occupation, although the petitioner also submitted email 
correspondence relating to potential future employment as an analytical chemist. 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. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the statute 
that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim" and present 
"extensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act and 
8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that an alien can 
establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement of a 
major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines 
ten categories of specific objective evidence. 8 C.P.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) through (x). The petitioner must 
submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory categories of evidence to establish 
the basic eligibility requirements. 
The petitioner's priority date established by the petition filing date is August 29, 2013. On December 2, 
2013, the director issued the petitioner a request for evidence (RFE). After receiving the petitioner's 
response to the RFE, the director issued his decision on April 28, 2014. On appeal, the petitioner 
submits a brief with additional documentary evidence. For the reasons discussed below, we uphold the 
director's ultimate determination that the petitioner has not established his eligibility for the 
classification sought. 
1 
The petitioner's cover letter requested classification as an outstanding researcher pursuant to section 
203(B)(1)(b) of the Act and referenced the regulation at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(i)(3)(ii) pertaining to the three years of 
experience required for that classification. It is noted that a researcher may not self-petition for classification as 
an outstanding researcher. 8 C.F.R § 204.5(i)(1). While the subsequent submissions reference the classification 
the petitioner indicated on part 2 of the petition, the appellate brief references the eminence and distinction 
standard for the outstanding researcher classification. See 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30705 (proposed July 5, 1991) 
(enacted 56 Fed. Reg. 60897 (Nov. 29, 1991)). We will review the petition under the extraordinary ability 
classification the petitioner indicated on the petition itself, especially as the petitioner cannot self-petition as an 
outstanding researcher. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page3 
I. LAW 
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 H.R. 723 101st Cong., 2d Sess. 59 
(1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to 
those individuals in that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. !d.; 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be established 
either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international ·recognized award) or 
through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten categories of evidence 
listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a petition 
filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although the court 
upheld the decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the evaluation of evidence submitted 
to meet a given evidentiary criterion? With respect to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 
(vi), 
the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised legitimate concerns about the significance of the 
2 Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary 
requirements beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page4 
evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, those concerns should have been raised in a subsequent 
"fmal merits determination." /d. at 1121-22. 
The court stated that the evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. Instead of 
parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the proper 
procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which we did)," and if the petitioner did not 
submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed to satisfy the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as we concluded)." /d. at 1122 (citing to 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)). 
Thus,. Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then considered 
in the context of a final merits determination. In this matter, we will review the evidence under the 
plain language requirements of each criterion claimed. As the petitioner did not submit qualifying 
evidence under at least three criteria, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has not satisfied the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. /d. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria3 
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 allied field of specification for which classification is sought. 
The director determined the petitioner met the requirements of this criterion. The petitioner has 
submitted sufficient evidence, including letters and emails describing his judging duties on a peer 
review panel for a journal, to establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
The petitioner initially asserted that meets this criterion. In the RFE, the director advised that the 
petitioner had not demonstrated that he meets this criterion and requested additional evidence, 
specifically: (1) evidence that the petitioner's major significant contributions have provoked 
widespread public commentary in the field and are widely cited, and (2) objective documentary 
evidence of the significance of the petitioner's contributions in the field as a whole. In response, the 
petitioner no longer asserted that he meets this criterion. On appeal, the petitioner provides new 
evidence relating to this criterion and discusses his contributions in the context of responding to the 
director's analysis in the final merits determination. The petitioner further asserts that because the 
director found that the petitioner met three other criteria, the director erred in denying the petition 
based on contributions. 
3 
The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence· relating to the regulatory categories of evidence not 
discussed in this decision. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
The regulation states that the petitioner shall submit additional evidence as the director, in his or her 
discretion, may deem necessary. The purpose of the request for evidence is to elicit further 
information that clarifies whether the petitioner has established eligibility for the benefit sought, as 
of the time the petition is filed. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(8) and (12). The failure to submit requested 
evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(14). Where, as here, a petitioner has been put on notice of a deficiency in the evidence 
and has been given an opportunity to respond to that deficiency, we will not accept evidence offered 
for the first time on appeal. See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); see also Matter of 
Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533 (BIA 1988). If the petitioner had wanted the submitted evidence to be 
considered, he should have submitted the documents in response to the director's request for 
evidence. /d. Under the circumstances, we will not consider the sufficiency of the evidence 
submitted within this antecedent procedural step. We will however, as the petitioner does on appeal, 
discuss the petitioner's contributions in his field within the final merits determination. That said, the 
petitioner is correct that meeting the contributions criterion is not required if the petitioner meets 
three other criteria. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The director determined the petitioner met the requirements of this criterion. The petitioner has 
submitted sufficient evidence, including scholarly works published in the requisite publication types, 
to establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner claimed that he performed in a critical role for four institutions. The director determined 
that the petitioner met the requirements of this criterion. The AAO conducts appellate review on a de 
novo basis. See Siddiqui v. Holder; 670 F.3d 736, 741 (7th Cir. 2012); Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 
143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004); Dar v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989). For the reasons 
outlined below, a review of the record of proceeding does not reflect that the petitioner submitted 
sufficient documentary evidence establishing that he meets the plain language requirements of this 
criterion. The director's favorable determination on this issue is hereby withdrawn. 
A leading role should be apparent by its position in the overall organizational hierarchy and by the 
role's matching duties. The petitioner has the responsibility to demonstrate that he actually performed 
the duties listed relating to the leading role. A critical role should be apparent from the petitioner's 
impact on the organization or the establishment's activities. The petitioner's performance in this role 
should establish whether the role was critical for the organization or establishment as a whole. The 
petitioner must demonstrate that the organizations or establishments (in the plural) have a distinguished 
reputation. While neither the regulation nor precedent speak to what constitutes a distinguished 
reputation, Merriam-Webster's online dictionary defines distinguished as, "marked by emmence, 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page6 
distinction, or excellence."4 Dictionaries are not of themselves evidence, but they may be referred to as 
aids to the memory and understanding of the court. Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304, 306 (1893). 
Therefore, it is the petitioner's burden to demonstrate that the organizations or establishments claimed 
under this criterion are marked by eminence, distinction, excellence, or an equivalent reputation. The 
petitioner must submit evidence satisfying all of these elements to meet the plain language requirements 
of this criterion. 
The petitioner provided several letters from Dr. Associate Vice President of _ 
which employed the petitioner for one year. According to Dr. 
the petitioner established the company's standard operating procedures to comply with 
international health regulations relating to drug stability studies conducted, which 
remain in place today. In Dr. February 10, 2014 letter, he indicated that 
reported a 73% increase in profits for the 2001 financial year, in major part because of the work 
the petitioner performed for the company. Regarding reputation, the petitioner 
provided a website printout from that indicated is 
India's leading contract research and testing organization. The evidence relating to this organization, 
the petitioner's critical role for this organization, and the organization's reputation are sufficient to meet 
the plain language requirements of this criterion. However, the plain language of the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires evidence that the petitioner performed in a leading or critical role 
for "organizations or establishments" in the plural, which is consistent with the statutory requirement 
for extensive evidence. Section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act; 8 U .S.C. § 1153(b )(1 )(A)(i). 
Significantly, not all of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) are worded in the plural. Specifically, the 
regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (ix) only require service on a single judging panel or a 
single high salary. When a regulatory criterion wishes to include the singular within the plural, it 
expressly does so as when it states at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) that evidence of experience must be 
in the form of "letter(s)." Thus, we can infer that the plural in the remaining regulatory criteria has 
meaning. In a different context, federal courts have upheld US CIS' ability to interpret significance 
from whether the singular or 
plural is used in a regulation. See Maramjaya v. USCIS, Civ. Act. No. 06-
2158 (RCL) at *1, *12 (D.C. Cir. March 26, 2008); Snapnames.com Inc. v. Chertojf, 2006 WL 3491005 
at *1, *10 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2006) (upholding an interpretation that the regulatory requirement for "a" 
bachelor's degree or "a" foreign equivalent degree at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(2) requires a single degree 
rather than a combination of academic credentials). 
The petitioner performed in a critical role for Dr. and for 
developing the generic forms of popular drugs, by ensuring regulatory compliance applicable to 
several governing bodies, including those of the United States and European countries. These generic 
drugs resulted in a significant increase in profits for the companies. Regarding the distinguished 
reputation of Dr. , the petitioner provided the initial filing statement, an online 
article from moneycontrol.com, and the company's background information derived from its own 
4 
See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/distinguished, accessed on September 30, 2014, a copy of 
which is incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
website, drreddys.com. In reference to the assertions within the initial filing statement, going on record 
without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof 
in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of 
Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). The online article from 
moneycontrol.com does not discuss this company's reputation. Instead, it describes the United States 
Food and Drug Administration's approval of one of the company's generic drugs. Finally, regarding 
the information deriving from Dr. · . this evidence represents the company's 
own promotional material. See Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06 5105 SJO (C. D. CA July 6, 2007) aff'd 
317 Fed.Appx. 680 (9th Cir. 2009) (concluding that the AAO did not have to rely on a company's self­
serving assertions). The petitioner did not submit any independent, objective evidence establishing that 
Dr. has a distinguished reputation pursuant to the regulation at 
8 C.P.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii). As a result, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that this organization 
enjoys a distinguished reputation. 
Regarding the distinguished reputation of the petitioner did not provide any 
evidence relating to the company's reputation. Consequently, even though the petitioner may have 
performed in a leading or critical role for this company, he has not submitted evidence that the 
organization has a distinguished reputation. 
Regarding , the petitioner submitted a letter and the online company profile from the 
company's own website. The letter from Director of Analytical Development at 
indicates that the petitioner was the lead analytical chemist responsible for identifying impurities in 
developmental drugs, and devising methods to reduce such impurities. Mr. further asserted that 
the petitioner's expertise was critical for the success of dozens of products manufactured by the 
company. However, Mr. did not provide specific information describing what result the 
petitioner's expertise and efforts had within the company, or how the petitioner's performance of his 
duties was responsible for the company's success. USCIS need not accept Mr. primarily 
conclusory assertions regarding the petitioner's impact on the organization. 1756, Inc. v. Att'y Gen, 745 
F. Supp. 9, 17 (D.D.C. 1990). Therefore, the petitioner has not submitted evidence demonstrating that 
he performed in a leading or critical role for this organization. Regarding the reputation of 
the company profile evidence is promotional. The petitioner did not submit any independent, objective 
evidence establishing that enjoys a distinguished reputation as required by the regulation at 
8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). See Braga, No. CV 06 5105 SJO. As a result, the petitioner has not 
submitted evidence that this organization enjoys a distinguished reputation. 
A review of the record of proceeding does not reflect that the petitioner submitted sufficient 
documentary evidence to establish that he meets the plain language of this criterion and the 
director's determination on this issue is hereby withdrawn. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
PageS 
B. Summary 
The petitioner has not satisfied the antecedent regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. 
C. Final Merits Determination 
In accordance with the Form I-290B, Part 4 the petitioner attached a statement regarding the basis for 
the appeal. Within this statement, the petitioner asserts the director's sole basis for denying his petition 
was because he did not establish that he had made contributions of major significance in his field. The 
petitioner also states within the appellate brief: 
The Director in the final merits determination determined that based on [the petitioner's] 
peer reviews, service on an Editorial Board and his critical role for his former 
employers, [the petitioner] already demonstrated that he is among that small percentage 
that has risen to the very top of his field. The only question remaining was whether or 
not [the petitioner] has sustained national or international acclaim and that his 
achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise. 
The director stated in his decision that the petitioner appeared to be in the top of the field as it relates to 
his judging activities under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and his performance in critical roles for his 
former employers under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). However, the director provided two bases for his 
adverse determination. First, the director indicated that the petitioner had not demonstrated that he had 
made contributions of major significance in the field under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), and that he had 
not demonstrated that he is among that small percentage that has risen to the top of his field. Second, 
although the director determined that the petitioner satisfied the authorship of scholarly articles criterion 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), he concluded that the field's minimal documented interest in the 
petitioner's published work demonstrated that his articles are not recognized beyond his circle of 
collaborators. The director closed indicating the evidence had been considered individually within the 
antecedent procedural step, and then as a whole within the final merits determination. He continued: 
"[T]he beneficiary has not reached a level of expertise indicating that he is one of that small percentage 
who has risen to the top of his field of endeavor." 
Although within these proceedings, the petitioner has not satisfied at least three of the evidentiary 
criteria and a final merits determination is not required, the director's sole basis of denial was that the 
evidence in the aggregate did not demonstrate the petitioner's eligibility. Thus, we will review that 
determination. 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 have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. In accordance with the 
Kazarian opinion, the AAO will conduct a final merits determination that considers all of the evidence 
in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a "level of expertise indicating that 
the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of 
endeavor," 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2); and (2) "that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim 
and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page9 
See Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the petitioner 
has not made such a showing. Accordingly, we must dismiss the appeal. 
With regard to the petitioner's judging experience under the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), we 
do not concur with the director's conclusion that the petitioner has demonstrated that his judging 
experience is commensurate with the small percentage that has risen to the very top of his field. The 
nature of the beneficiary's judging experience is a relevant consideration as to whether the evidence is 
indicative of the beneficiary's national or international acclaim. See Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1122. The 
petitioner has performed a moderate amount of peer review for four journals and has performed as one 
of over 100 peer reviewers for which also utilizes a specialty consultants panel and 
an editorial board. 5 
Regarding the petitioner's experience as an editorial board member, he claims to be a member on the 
Editorial Board of the The 
petitioner submitted a printout of what appears to be an email from Dr. _ the Associate 
Editor of the journal, and a letter from Dr. Regarding the email, although the "To:" line lists an 
email that appears to be associated with the petitioner, the body of the email does not reflect any 
indication that the petitioner is its intended recipient. The email salutation lacks any intended audience 
stating: "ar, I welcome you in our family." The petitioner also submitted a photocopy of a letter 
purportedly from Dr. that also lacks any indication that the petitioner is the intended recipient. The 
letter's salutation states: "Dear, I welcome you in our family."6 These documents are not probative 
evidence that establishes the petitioner is, or was, a member of'this journal's editorial board. Even if the 
petitioner's evidence was sufficient to demonstrate that he is a member of this journal's editorial board, 
the record contains no evidence establishing the number of editors at the petitioner's level or the duties 
for editors at his level. For example, the petitioner submitted information about the 
listing an editorial board with 100 members, three associate 
editors and two executive editors. Moreover, some of the individuals who wrote support letters on the 
petitioner's behalf have served on numerous editorial boards of scientific journals, such as Dr. 
who has served on nine editorial boards. Thus, these authors' level of judging suggests that the 
petitioner's experience does not place him within the small percentage at the top of his field. 
The petitioner's probative evidence of his moderate number of peer review duties for journals or 
pharmaceutical information services does not place him within the small percentage at the top of his 
field. Intermittent participation in the peer review process for scholarly journals does not automatically 
demonstrate that an individual has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of his field. 
The record lacks evidence pre-dating the filing of the petition that sets the petitioner apart from others in 
his field, such as evidence that he has received and completed independent requests for review from a 
s--- is "a subscription service for pharmacists." See 
htt : ------~-~ accessed on September 30, 2014 and 
incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
6 
A review of the website does not reveal that the petitioner is listed as an editorial board member at any 
level. See http: accessed on September 30, 2014, 
which is incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
substantial number of journals or conferences, served in an exclusive editorial position for a 
distinguished journal, or chaired a technical committee for a reputable conference. Without such 
evidence, the petitioner has not established that he is among that small percentage who has risen to the 
very top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
With regard to the authorship of scholarly articles criterion under 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), we agree 
with the director's conclusion that although the petitioner met the plain language requirements of this 
criterion, the evidence is not indicative of or commensurate with sustained national or international 
acclaim. Pursuant to the reasoning in Kazarian, 596 P.3d at 1122, the field's response to these articles 
may be and will be considered in a final merits determination. Within the initial petition filing, the 
petitioner submitted evidence of nine of his scholarly articles. Nonetheless, the authors of the expert 
letters have published up to nine times more scholarly articles and papers than the petitioner. This 
information shows that the experts that the petitioner solicited reference letters from have a more active 
journal experience than the petitioner. As such, the petitioner's publication record is not indicative of or 
consistent with sustained national or international acclaim or status among the small percentage at the 
top of the field. 
More significantly, the petitioner has not documented the impact of these articles in the field, a valid 
consideration. /d. On appeal the petitioner contests the director's determination that the low number of 
citations his work has garnered is an indicator that the petitioner is not one of that small percentage that 
has risen to the top of his field. In support of the petitioner's contention, he asserts that research "in the 
areas of all have low or no citations. Therefore, in 
this area of research, the citation alone should not be a measure of a researcher's national/international 
acclaim." The evidence in support of this assertion is an undated printout from Google Scholar utilizing 
the following phrase placed in quotes in the Google Scholar search engine, · 
' The use of quotes limits the response to published articles that contain 
this exact phrase and does not represent the wider topic of pharmaceutical research in this area. The 
phrase in the quote is also the partial title of one of the petitioner's published scholarly works. 
Therefore, the petitioner has not sufficiently supported his assertion that scholarly works in his area of 
research receive very few citations. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not 
sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N 
Dec. at 165. As such, the petitioner's publication record is not indicative of or consistent with sustained 
national or international acclaim or status among the small percentage at the top of the field. 
With regard to the original contributions of major significance criterion under 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), 
the petitioner correctly asserts that an inability to meet this criterion does not preclude eligibility where 
a petitioner meets three different criteria. To the extent that the petitioner continues to discuss his 
contributions, however, we will address that evidence here. The level at which the petitioner's 
contributions have impacted his field, as a whole, is the determining factor as to whether his 
contributions are commensurate with one who is among that small percentage who has risen to the very 
top of the field of endeavor and has sustained national or international acclaim at such an elevated level. 
See 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2). In the initial filing, the petitioner claimed he has made contributions of 
major significance in his field in the academic arena and in the industry as a whole. Within academia, 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
he claims his impact is to research projects, research teams, and through scholarly publications. As 
supporting evidence, the petitioner submits letters from coauthors. The petitioner's contributions to 
research projects and teams with which he has collaborated does not demonstrate contributions in the 
field at a level indicative of or commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim. As 
discussed above, the petitioner's publication record is not indicative of his status among the small 
percentage at the top of his field .. 
Within the industry, the petitioner claims his impact in the field is through other researchers seeking out 
his expertise, which is also related to his method development, data validation, and regulatory 
compliance. As previously noted, the industry as a whole has not recognized and adopted the 
petitioner's methods and validation models as original and applicable to the industry as a whole, and 
therefore, he has not demonstrated that his method development or data validation is a contribution in 
the field as a whole. Nor did the petitioner establish that his ability to meet international regulatory 
compliance is somehow revolutionary or applicable to the field as a whole such that a significant 
number of companies have already implemented his methods. While several expert letters describe 
how the petitioner's contributions were critical to individual companies, he has not demonstrated such a 
contribution in his field. On appeal, the petitioner also claims developments that are in the "drug 
development pipeline" and will benefit a number of patients. The plain meaning of the regulatory 
language proposes that an alien of "extraordinary ability" is an individual who has already reached the 
very top of the field of endeavor, not those who are progressing upward or those who show promise of 
reaching that level of achievement. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). Without demonstrating significant 
measurable impacts on the petitioner's entire field, he cannot demonstrate that he has achieved a 
level of expertise indicative of a finding that the petitioner is one of that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of his field. 
Regarding the documentation submitted for the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), the 
petitioner has demonstrated that he performed in a critical role for one organization in his field and that 
this organization has a distinguished reputation. Although the petitioner demonstrated that he 
performed in a leading or critical role for two other companies, he did not establish that either enjoys a 
distinguished reputation. The petitioner's references include an associate vice president, a Director of 
Analytical Development, a Head of the Department of Pharmaceutical Analysis & Quality Assurance, a 
Senior Manager of Global Regulatory Affairs, a Director of Regulatory Affairs and a Managing 
Director. The documentation the petitioner submits pertaining to his critical roles, only one of which is 
for an organization with a documented distinguished reputation, is not indicative of or consistent with 
sustained national acclaim or a level of expertise indicating that he is one of that small percentage who 
have risen to the very top of his field. 
III. CONCLUSION 
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 have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
A review of the evidence in the aggregate, however, does not establish that the petitioner has 
distinguished himself to such an extent that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or 
international acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the very top of his field of pharmaceutical 
research. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set him significantly above 
almost all others in his field at a national or international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not 
established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b )(1)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
The petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act and the petition 
may not be approved. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of 
Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.