dismissed EB-1A Case: Plant Biology And Horticulture

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
"=ma& dab ddetc8 @ 20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
PLJ 
t& 
Washington, DC 20529 
CB~V~B~ ~1e~rEy nsw 
3ydxa3q ni? ncye~~oe ~~V~.G~FJ U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: WAC 02 289 54462 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: 2 3 zgf>if 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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: 
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 
Robert P. 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 02 289 54462 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, California Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability in the 
sciences. The director determined that the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international 
acclaim requisite to classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
(1) Priority Workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are aliens 
described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with Extraordinary Ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
The applicable regulation defines the statutory term "extraordinary ability" as "a level of expertise indicating 
that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(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. 5 204.5(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 of the beneficiary as an alien with extraordinary ability in the 
sciences, specifically in the field of plant biology and horticulture. The record contains numerous documents 
submitted with the petition and in response to two requests for evidence (RFEs). The director determined the 
record did not establish that the beneficiary was an alien with extraordinary ability. On appeal, counsel 
contends that the director did not properly evaluate the evidence submitted and imposed a standard of review 
that is not supported by the statute or the regulations. Counsel's claims do not overcome the insufficiency of the 
evidence and the substantive reasons for denial. The evidence submitted, counsel's contentions and the 
director's decision are addressed in the following discussion of the regulatory criteria relevant to the petitioner's 
case. 
WAC 02 289 54462 
Page 3 
(iii) Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media, 
relating to the alien S work in theJield for which classzjication is sought. Such evidence shall include the 
title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
To satisfy this criterion, the evidence must establish that the publication is about the alien and his or her work, 
hence the alien must be a primary subject of the publication. The mere listing of an alien as a subject matter 
expert or the simple citation of an alien's work without substantive analysis or discussion is insufficient. In this 
case, the petitioner submitted evidence that the beneficiary's work had been cited in two treatises in her field, 
the CRC Handbook of Flowering and The Physiology of Flower Bulbs and that she was listed in the 
International Directory of Specialists in Herbs, Spices, and Medicinal Plants. The director correctly determined 
that this evidence was insufficient to establish the beneficiary's eligibility under this criterion and counsel does 
not contest that determination on appeal. 
The record contains an excerpt from Volume II of the CRC Handbook of Flowering that cites the beneficiary's 
work in a section entitled "Crocus Sativus." An article of which the beneficiary is the lead author is cited once 
in one paragraph under the subheading "Periodicity and Differentiation." An article of which the beneficiary is 
a co-author is cited once in the following paragraph. The excerpt shows that the CRC Handbook of Flowering is 
a five-volume treatise that was published in 1985. In response to the second WE, the petitioner submitted 
printouts from the publisher's website and Amazon.com. The former simply recites the history of the CRC 
press, but says nothing about the CRC Handbook. The latter states that the CRC Handbook is "an exhaustive 
source of information on the control and regulation of flowering." The beneficiary's work is cited twice in a 
two-paragraph sub-entry in a five-volume treatise that was published 17 years prior to the filing of her petition. 
The citation is brief and does not reflect the sustained acclaim necessary to classification as an alien with 
extraordinary ability. 
The citation of the beneficiary's work in The Physiology of Flower Bulbs is similarly insufficient. The record 
contains an excerpt from a section on crocuses. . Two of the beneficiary's articles are cited in two paragraphs 
under the sub-heading "B. 19.7.3.2. Exogenous Growth Regulators." This book is subtitled "A Comprehensive 
Treatise on the Physiology and Utilization of Ornamental Flowering Bulbous and Tuberous Plants" and was 
published in 1993. The record contains evidence that this treatise was edited by a renowned expert in the field, 
August De Hertogh, Professor Emeritus of the Department of Horticultural Science at North Carolina State 
University. The petitioner also submitted a support letter from Professor De Hertogh that states that the 
beneficiary's "research contributed greatly to our knowledge of this cormous plant" and confirms that her work 
was cited in his treatise. The solicited endorsement of an expert in the field does not overcome the fact that the 
petitioner's work is cited only twice in this comprehensive treatise that was published nearly a decade before the 
petition was filed and does not reflect the requisite sustained acclaim. The citation of the beneficiary's research 
in this treatise and the CRC Handbook is also relevant to and is discussed below under the sixth criterion. 
Finally, the mere listing of the beneficiary in the International Directory of Specialists in Herbs, Spices, and 
Medicinal Plants is also insufficient to meet this criterion. The excerpt and documents relating to this 
publication that were submitted with the petition show that the beneficiary was listed along with 900 other 
specialists from 85 countries. The Directory was published in 1993, nearly a decade before the petition was 
filed and also does not reflect the requisite sustained acclaim. The beneficiary's inclusion in this book is more 
relevant to and is discussed below under the fifth criterion. 
WAC 02 289 54462 
Page 4 
(v) Evidence of the alien S original scientijic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions 
of major signi$cance in the field. 
The director correctly determined that the beneficiary did not meet this criterion. In his discussion of the 
support letters submitted as evidence under this criterion, the director noted that "the definition of extraordinary 
ability for purposes of the benefit sought is a much more specific definition that is clearly different from how it 
is being used in the letters of support.. . . It is not sufficient to simply show that the beneficiary has achieved 
three of the ten criteria enumerated in the regulation if the sustained acclaim either nationally or internationally 
has not been reached and the recognition of achievement in the field has not reached the level expected within 
this highly restrictive definition.'' On appeal, counsel claims that these comments constitute a "misapplication 
of the statutory standards for extraordinary ability." We do not read the director's decision as imposing a 
standard outside of the statute or the regulation. Rather, the director correctly noted that support letters alone 
rarely suffice to meet this criterion and that the weight given to evidence submitted under this category must 
depend on the extent to which the evidence demonstrates, reflects, or is consistent with sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top of the field of endeavor. 
In addition to his own letters, the petitioner submitted ten support letters from experts in the beneficiary's field 
or related areas of specialization. Seven of these letters were written by the beneficiary's former supervisors, 
collaborators or colleagues. 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 or her field beyond the limited number of 
scientists with whom he or she has worked directly. The record also contains three letters from independent 
experts in the beneficiary's field who were requested to provide their assessments of her abilities. These letters 
are also informative, but cannot establish the beneficiary's eligibility by themselves. Recommendation letters 
solicited by an alien for his or her immigration case carry far less weight than preexisting, independent evidence 
of major contributions that one would expect of a scientist who has achieved sustained national or international 
acclaim. Accordingly, the letters will be discussed as they relate to other evidence in the record relevant to this 
criterion. 
The petitioner claims the beneficiary has made the following original scientific contributions of major 
significance to her field: 1) research on the saffron crocus; 2) research on the Cuban lilly (Scilla Permiana); 
and 3) research leading to the introduction of new varieties of plant bulbs. We examine each claim in turn. 
First, the record shows that the beneficiary gained expertise in the saffron crocus while a doctoral student at the 
Timiryazev Institute of Plant Physiology at the Academy of Sciences of the former Soviet Union. Dr. Elvina 
Milyaeva, one of the beneficiary's dissertation advisors, confirms that the topic of the beneficiary's dissertation 
was the investigation of saffron growth and productivity. Dr. Milyaeva notes that saffron is an important plant 
for both medicine and agriculture and that the beneficiary's research made her "a unique expert not only in the 
field of the Saffron investigation, but in the field of studying many bulb plants too." Professor Meira Ziv 
confirms that the beneficiary continued her work on saffron in Professor Ziv's research group at the Department 
of Agricultural Botany within the Hebrew University of Jerusalem where she "helped advance the commercial 
growing and enhance flowering in this plant using her previous research on the manipulation of growth with 
plant hormones." As discussed above under the third criterion, Professor De Hertogh states that the 
beneficiary's research "contributed greatly to our knowledge of this cormous plant" and notes that her work was 
cited in his treatise, The Physiology of Flower Bulbs. 
WAC 02 289 54462 
Page 5 
The record indicates that the beneficiary's saffron research resulted in five articles published in scientific 
journals and a chapter contribution to a book. The beneficiary is the lead author of five of the articles and the 
book chapter and a co-author of the sixth article. The petitioner submitted a cited reference search for the 
beneficiary as Exhibit AA in response to the second RFE. This list states only the names of the journals and not 
the titles of the articles. The dates of the publications are cut off such that the exact year is illegible. Given 
these limitations, it appears that three of the petitioner's articles on saffron have been cited a total of five times. 
The record contains no information about the individual citations from which we could determine whether or 
not the citations were by independent research teams. The evidence shows that the beneficiary is a recognized 
expert on the saffron crocus, but the minimal citation of her work indicates that her research does not constitute 
a contribution of major significance to her field. 
The beneficiary subsequently conducted research on the Cuban lily (scilla peruviana) while working at the 
Biotechnology Laboratory of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada. As confirmed by 
Professor Brian Ellis (her supervisor) and Christia M. Roberts (Industrial Technology Advisor at the National 
Research Council of Canada, Industrial Research Assistance Program), the beneficiary received competitive 
funding to research the Cuban lily. Professor Ellis explains that she conducted a detailed developmental study 
and developed an efficient micropropagation method for rapid multiplication of Cuban lily stock plants. The 
beneficiary's research was published in Hort Science in 1998, but the record contains no citation information for 
this article. A letter from Ruth Gaumond, Production Editor of Hort Science, 
beneficiary's article in this journal and states that "[tlhe pioneering research done b 
enabled growers to force flowering to increase sales during the main high 
domestic and international markets." The beneficiary's research was jointly funded by Milner Greenhouses in 
British Columbia. Milner President Marc Shane states that the beneficiary's work enabled his company "to ship 
8,000 Scilla plants to Canada and USA. Moreover, it created 15 additional jobs at the company and increased 
revenues by $100,000.00 in the first year alone." The petitioner jointly funded finther research by the 
beneficiary on the micropropagation of Scilla and Eucomis. An August 22,2002 letter from the petitioner states 
that these bulbs are relatively new to the market and that the beneficiary's "pioneering research has enabled us 
to enter the market with successful introductions of both these crops." However, the evidence is insufficient to 
establish that the beneficiary's work in this area constitutes a scientific contribution of major significance to her 
field. Rather, the record indicates that the beneficiary's work led to significant economic benefits for two 
floriculture businesses. These economic benefits are more relevant to her subsequent work for the petitioner 
(discussed below) and the eighth criterion. 
The beneficiary left British Columbia to begin working for the petitioner who claims that her research has led to 
the introduction of new varieties of plant bulbs, specifically the aforementione 
hybrids, begonia, amaryllis and calla lilies. The petitioner states that because 
supplies 90 percent of the tubers bulb market, [the beneficiary's] work dire 
market." The record contains no evidence to substantiate the petitioner's claim that his company supplies 90 
percent of the bulb market, yet other letters attest to the general economic value of the beneficiary's work. 
Professor Lyle E. Craker of the Laboratory for Natural Products, Medicinal and Aromatic Plants at the 
University of Massachusetts Amherst (and publisher of the aforementioned International Directory of 
Specialists in Herbs, Spices, and Medicinal Plants) states that the beneficiary's "innovative approach to bulb 
multiplication in Scilla, Eucomis, and Calla are actively contributing to the vitality of the American floral 
industry. She is one of the foremost researchers using in vivo and in vitro techniques to develop both the science 
and practical aspects of floriculture." Citing support letters from the petitioner and Milner Greenhouses, 
Professor Timothy A. Nelson of Seattle Pacific University (who was requested to write an "opinion letter" on 
WAC 02 289 54462 
Page 6 
the beneficiary's qualifications) states that the beneficiary's work has led to "substantial economic benefits for 
the horticulture trade." Professor De Hertogh echoes the economic value of the beneficiary's recent work: 
''[qor the past three years, she has been conducting research on several other speciality [sic] flower bulbs that 
are becoming commercially important [sic]." 
Professor De Hertogh also states that the beneficiary "has developed skills in several disciplines, e.g., 
physiology, tissue culture, and cytology; and has successfully applied them to several unique and challenging 
flower bulb species . . . . To the best of my knowledge there is no other scientist in the U.S., who currently has 
these skills in the field of flower bulbs." He concludes that the beneficiary "is quite unique in our field in the 
U.S." because he knows of only one other scientist who has similar qualifications. On appeal, counsel quotes 
these latter statements as prima facie evidence of the beneficiary's eligibility. Yet Professor De Hertogh is 
simply praising the beneficiary's technical skills and qualifications. He does not equate those skills and 
qualifications with original scientific contributions of major significance to the field. Besides the letters of 
Professors De Hertogh and Nelson and the documented economic value of the beneficiary's work to the 
petitioner, the record contains no other corroborative evidence that the beneficiary's recent work has made a 
major impact in her field. Accordingly, the evidence regarding this work is also insufficient to meet this 
criterion. The commercial implications of the beneficiary's work are also relevant to and will be discussed 
below under the eighth criterion. 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The director correctly concluded that the beneficiary did not meet this criterion. Frequent publication of 
research findings is inherent to success as an established scientist and does not necessarily demonstrate the 
sustained acclaim requisite to classification as an alien with extraordinary ability. Evidence of publications 
must be accompanied by documentation of consistent citation by independent experts or other proof that the 
alien's publications have been recognized in his or her field in a manner consistent with the requisite sustained 
acclaim. In this case, the record indicates that the beneficiary has published articles in reputable journals in her 
field, but the evidence is insufficient to establish that her work has been consistently cited by independent 
researchers. 
The beneficiary is cited as an expert on the saffron crocus in the two treatises and directory discussed above 
under the fifth criterion. In addition, the beneficiary has published 13 articles in scientific journals in her field. 
She is the lead author of seven of these articles and a co-author of six. The citation list submitted as Exhibit AA 
in the second RFE response indicates that the beneficiary's work has been cited a total of 16 times. The 
beneficiary's doctoral thesis has been cited once. As previously discussed under the fifth criterion, this citation 
list is partially illegible, does not indicate the title of the cited articles and whether the beneficiary is the lead or 
co-author. Most importantly, the list provides no information about the individual citations from which we 
could determine whether or not the beneficiary's work has been cited by independent researchers. 
On appeal, counsel contends that the beneficiary "has demonstrated the major significance of her research [on 
the saffion crocus] because it continues to be cited more than 25 years after her original work on this species in 
the Soviet Union." Counsel's claim is unsupported by the record. The beneficiary lists five articles and one 
book chapter that discuss her saffion research published between 1978 and 1999. The most recent recognition 
of the beneficiary as a saffron expert was the brief citation of her 1978 and 1983 work in the treatise The 
Physiology of Flower Bulbs and her listing in the International Directoly of Specialists in Herbs, Spices, and 
WAC 02 289 54462 
Page 7 
Medicinal Plants. Both of these books were published in 1993, fifteen years after the publication of her earliest 
work on the subject and nearly a decade prior to the filing of her petition. Although the evidence establishes 
that the beneficiary is recognized for her expertise in saffron, it does not show that her articles have been 
consistently cited in a manner that reflects sustained national or international acclaim. Accordingly, the 
beneficiary does not meet this criterion. 
(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien 's work in the$eld at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
The petitioner submitted copies of the beneficiary's abstracts and other evidence of her participation in various 
scientific conferences in her field. The director found this evidence inapplicable to this criterion because the 
conferences were not artistic exhibitions or showcases. Counsel does not contest this determination on appeal. 
We note that even if we considered the documents submitted under the comparable evidence provision of 8 
C.F.R. 3 204.5(h)(4), they would still be insufficient to establish the beneficiary's eligibility. Frequent 
presentation of research findings is intrinsic to the scientific profession. Thus the evidence must establish that 
the alien's role at a given conference reflects sustained national or international acclaim and does not simply 
document the alien's continued activity in his or her field. The record in this case does not do so. Although the 
beneficiary has attended several conferences in her field, the evidence does not indicate that she has been a 
featured speaker or in any other way distinguished from other participants. In fact, the evidence shows that the 
beneficiary has presented her work at conferences mainly through posters and abstracts. 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments 
that have a distinguished reputation. 
To demonstrate eligibility under 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. The petitioner originally claimed 
that the beneficiary met this criterion University of;lerusalem, the university of 
British Columbia and at his company The director determined that the beneficiary 
did not meet this criterion, but did no nce. On appeal, counsel contends that the 
beneficiary plays a crucial role for the petitioner due to her "horticulture business-related contributions." We 
find that the record demonstrates the beneficiary's eligibility under this criterion by virtue of her work for the 
petitioner, but not for her former employers. 
The record is insufficient to show that the beneficiary met this criterion through her work at the Hebrew 
University of Jerusalem. A letter from Professor Meira Ziv confirms that the beneficiary was a "senior research 
associate" in the Department of Agricultural Botany of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem from August, 1991 
to November, 1993. Professor Ziv states that the beneficiary was "a leading researcher in projects dealing with 
newly introduced flower crops" and notes her "leading research and application, in collaboration with Israeli 
growers, on Crocus Sativus." The beneficiary also worked with Professor Ziv's "group on Nerine, Gladiouls, 
Brodiea, as will [sic] as Banana and Aspen in liquid cultures in bioreactors." In particular, the beneficiary 
"provided anatomical information which helped solve some of the problems of malformation encountered in 
large scale liquid cultures particularly with banana plant propagated in tissue culture." Professor Ziv adds that 
the beneficiary provided "training to some of our graduate students and researchers." The record also contains a 
printout from the University's website, a copy of a brochure of the University that states that its "researchers are 
at the forefront of international science" and a copy of a brochure for the Faculty of Agriculture, Food and 
WAC 02 289 54462 
Page 8 
Environmental Quality Sciences that includes a two-paragraph description of the Department of Agricultural 
Botany. This evidence indicates that the petitioner made valuable contributions to, but did not play a leading or 
critical role in Professor Ziv's research group. The record also contains no independent evidence that the 
Hebrew University of Jerusalem's Depafiment of Agricultural Botany is recognized for its distinguished 
reputation. 
Similarly insufficient is the evidence regarding the petitioner's work at the Biotechnology Laboratory of the 
University of British Columbia. Professor Brian Ellis states that the beneficiary "was a valued member of my 
research group at the University of British Columbia fi-om August 1994 to [December] 1999." The successful 
results of the beneficiary's research conducted at Professor Ellis' laboratory were discussed above under the 
fifth criterion. Professor Ellis explains that the beneficiary first joined his group as a volunteer and then became 
a "research associate" when she successfUlly obtained funding for her research on Scilla peruviana, Eucomis 
and the calla lily. He notes that the beneficiary "provided effective training for the personnel who worked with 
her" and that her research associate later became a manager of a commercial tissue culture facility. Although he 
opines that the beneficiary "ran the best research tissue culture facility in British Columbia during the two year 
period that she worked at the University," he does not state that such a facility was critical to his laboratory or 
that it continued after the beneficiary left. Rather, the letter indicates that if the beneficiary had not volunteered 
and then later secured her own research funding, Professor Ellis would not have been able to employ her. The 
record also contains a printout from the website of the University of British Columbia that states that the 
University is "aspiring to be Canada's best university." The record thus indicates that the beneficiary engaged 
in valuable research while working at Professor Ellis' laboratory, but it is insufficient to establish that she 
played a leading or critical role. The record also contains no evidence that the University of British Columbia 
and the Biotechnology Laboratory have distinguished reputations. 
The record is also insufficient to establish the beneficiary's eligibility by virtue of her recent work for the 
petitioner. The petitioner's September 6, 2002 letter accompanying the petithp-ai~s that 
"currently serves in a leading and critical capacity as a plant biologist 
petitioner states that the beneficiary's work has allowed the company to -. 
in turn "increased company revenues and created several new job openings. Her work has allowed us to 
maintain our competitive edge by the introduction and development of new crops and the improvement of -. 
" The record also contains an organizational chart of the "Research ~ivision 0- 
at places the beneficiary on top as "Lab DirectorLead Research Scientist (Reports to 
ary supervises a Field Researcher/Quality Control Manager, L 
der and other staff. The chart notes that ''[all1 staff is new sinc 
joined the company" except for the Field PathologistPlant Breeder. The petitioner submitted charts indicating 
that from 2000 to 2002 the beneficiary's work enabled the company to increase its plant varieties from 2 1 to 107 
and its total plant production from 263,551 to 1,253,500. The petitioner states that this "increased output of new 
plant varieties has in turn increased company revenues and created new job openings." The record contains tax 
returns and financial reports showing that the company's gross sales increased from $16,250,790 in 2000, the 
year the beneficiary began working for the company, to $19,622,794 in 2002, the year the petition was filed (on 
September 27). This evidence demonstrates that the beneficiary performs a critical role for the petitioner. 
The record also indicates tha as a distinguished reputation. 
Evidence submitted regarding reputation includes: 1) an undated, incomplete co of an article 
entitled ''The calla Lilies are estates that&'is the 
largest grower of colored callas in the world;" 2) an undated article from www.homestore.com that also refers to 
WAC 02 289 54462 
Page 9 
s "the largest grower of colo Id;" 3) excerpts from Greenhouse Management 
gazine that briefly m w calla varieties; 4) A short entry under "New 
ugust 1999 edition gins: "One of our favorite stops each year is at 
ere company president Tom Lukens wows us with his enthusiasm and knowledge of calla 
ed article from an unidentified source that discusses the 
California; 6) an article entitled "15 Must-Dos for Quality Callas" written b 
published in the Fall 1999 edition of GrowerTalks; 7) an advertisement for 
published in the October, 2000 edition of Floraculture International; and 8) a short entry under the company's 
name in a piece entitled "Pack Trials 2002 Part II" published in the August, 2002 edition of GrowerTalks that 
notes "HIPP - Hi In ut Potted Product: That's the hottest thing in calla lilies since Bonzi. It's also top secret 
technology. &resident Tom Lukens would only say that it's a method of producing calla bulbs in 
greenhouses rather than in the field." In response to the second RFE, the petitioner submitted three more 
substantive articles that feature Golden State, but were all published after the petition was filed and 
consequently cannot be considered. Eligibility must be established at the time of filing. See 8 C.F.R. 
14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Comm. 1971). Yet the remaining evidence is 
sufficient to show tha is a recognized leader in its industry, specifically for its expertise in colored 
establishes that the beneficiary performs a critical role for the petitioner, a 
company with a distinguished reputation in the floriculture industry and thereby meets this criterion. 
(ix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signifcantly high remuneration for 
services, in relation to others in the$eld. 
The petitioner originally claimed that the beneficiary met this criterion because her purported salary of $70,000 
was above that of the level two wage for a biologist in Santa Cruz County, California according to an 
Occupational Employment Statistics salary survey. The first RFE asked the petitioner to provide primary 
evidence of the beneficiary's income and additional comparative evidence for the salaries of plant biologists and 
horticulturists. The petitioner did not submit the requested evidence and the director correctly determined that 
the evidence was insufficient to meet this criterion. Counsel does not contest that determination on appeal. 
An immigrant visa will be granted to an alien under section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act only if the petitioner can 
establish the alien's extraordinary ability through extensive documentation of sustained national or international 
acclaim demonstrating that the alien has risen to the very top of his or her field. The petitioner bears this 
substantial burden of proof. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1361. The petitioner in this case has not 
sustained that burden. The evidence indicates that the beneficiary is a valued researcher who is a noted expert 
on the saffron crocus and serves a critical role for a distinguished floriculture company. However, the record 
does not establish that she is a scientist of extraordinary ability. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration L2z-'2 ii@@$ &mi 
bwmi~~ ~f 
FILE: - Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: SEp 0 2 2005 
EAC 03 242 5 1865 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
thpffice thaJ originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
P. Wiemann, Director 
/ b' Administrative Appeals Office V 
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 dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. fj 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. 
Review of Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) records indicates that, subsequent to filing the instant 
petition, the petitioner filed another Form 1-140, receipt number EAC 04 098 50202. That petition for 
classification under section 203(b)(2) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(2), was approved on March 30,2005. The 
alien's Form 1-485 Application to Adjust Status, receipt number EAC 04 11 1 50024, was approved on March 
3 1, 2005. Because the alien has adjusted to lawful permanent resident status, further pursuit of the matter at 
hand is moot. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed, based on the alien's adjustment to lawful permanent resident status.