dismissed EB-1A Case: Plant Pathology

FILE: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Ofice of Administrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
- Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: DEC 2 4 2009 
SRC07219 52314 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraor- Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 4 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 4 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 4 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
~!l>&%h l:L 
/" Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas 
Service Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 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. 8 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 necessary to qualifL for classification as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. More specifically, the director found that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate 
receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3). 
On appeal, counsel argues that the petitioner meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
0 204.5(h)(3). 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are 
aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, 
business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or 
international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the 
field through extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization 
Service (INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for 
individuals seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 
60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of 
expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top 
of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(2). The specific requirements for supporting 
documents to establish that an alien has sustained national or international acclaim and recognition 
in his or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The relevant 
criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that 
he has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
Page 3 
This petition, filed on July 12, 2007, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary 
ability plant pathology researcher. At the time of filing, the petitioner working as an Assistant 
Project Scientist in the Department of Plant Pathology at the University of California at Davis 
(UCD). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally 
recognized award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, 
at least three of which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to 
qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. A petitioner, however, cannot establish eligibility for this 
classification merely by submitting evidence that simply relates to at least three criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
8 204.5(h)(3). In determining whether the petitioner meets a specific criterion, the evidence itself 
must be evaluated in terms of whether it is indicative of or consistent with sustained national or 
international acclaim. A lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory 
definition of "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). The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria under 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3).' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The ~etitioner submitted a June 1997 certificate from the Institute of - 
The criteria for being eligible for thefellowship are as follows: 
2.1 Experience is appropriate to that of a 'mid-career' scientist who is normally the 
citizen of a developing or emerging country, or alternatively has been based exclusively 
within such a country. 
2.2 There is an absolute requirement that the applicant undertakes to return to the home 
(developing) country or one closely related where the work can be applied. Thus, 
candidates who have extensive andlor continuous employment in a developed country are 
not likely to be awarded an - 
2.3 Not applicable to students at the start of their career, nor senior scientists in the later 
stages of their career who may be accustomed to a great deal of technical support within 
the laboratory. 
1 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
- 
Page 4 
2.4 The individual is one that we know (directly or indirectly), have met, or has been 
highly recommended. 
2.5 Leading up to submitting the Application there should be collaborative contact 
between the Applicant and the Project Leader to form a solid basis for a good and well- 
planned research project. 
2.6 Rothamsted International especially encourages applications from women scientists. 
2.7 There have been limited opportunities to travel and train in the past and alternative 
sources of current funding are not available. 
The director found that "the criteria listed above do not indicate that the recipients of this fellowship 
are necessarily of extraordinary ability and have been awarded this fellowship because of excellence 
in their field of endeavor." We concur with the director's finding. We cannot conclude that 
possessing experience "appropriate to that of a 'mid-career' scientist" and that lacking "extensive 
andlor continuous employment in a developed country" equate to "excellence in the field of 
endeavor." 
The petitioner also submitted a September 21, 1999 letter addressed to him fiom the Research 
Branch of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada stating: "I am pleased to offer you a Visiting 
Fellowship under the terms of the above program to work at the following Agriculture and Agri- 
- - 
. . . Your research supervisor will be Dr. 
- 
- 
The petitioner's 
represent financial support for his advanced scientific training and research projects under the 
supervision of ather than nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in his field of endeavor. With regard to these fellowships for which the 
petitioner applied and received funding, we note that a substantial amount of scientific research is 
funded by grants from a variety of public and private sources. Every successll scientist engaged in 
research, of which there are hundreds of thousands, receives funding from somewhere. Obviously the 
past achievements of the researcher are a factor in the fellowship application process. The funding 
institution has to be assured that the fellowship recipient is capable of performing the proposed research. 
Nevertheless, a fellowship grant is principally designed to fund temporary scientific training and 
research, and not to honor or recognize past research achievements. Further, experienced scientists do 
not compete for fellowships and competitive postdoctoral appointments. Accordingly, we cannot 
conclude that having one's scientific training and research funded in this manner constitutes the 
petitioner's receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the 
field. 
Page 5 
The petitioner submitted a December 5, 1996 letter addressed to him from the - 
stating: 
Thank you for your recent application to the ursary to attend the = 
. . . I am pleased to tell you that your application has been 
successful and we look forward to seeing you at the meeting. 
You will be accommodated at the expense of the for the duration of the 
symposium. 
The petitioner also submitted a document entitled '( 
BURSARIES" stating: 
Aim: To enable young scientists to attend symposia in London . . . and, 
immediately following the meeting, spend up to 12 weeks in the department of one of the 
symposium participants. 
Qualifications: Applicants . . . must be aged between 23-35 years on the closing date for the 
application. It is essential that they be actively engaged in research on the topic covered by 
the symposium of their choice. 
We cannot conclude that being "actively engaged in research" equates to "excellence in the field of 
endeavor." With regard to the requirement that applicants "be aged between 23-35 years," we do not 
find that the petitioner's receipt of a travel award restricted to only "young scientists" indicates that 
he "is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." See 
8 C.F.R. $ 204.5@)(2). There is no indication that the petitioner faced competition from throughout 
his field, rather than limited to his approximate age group in the field. The petitioner seeks a highly 
restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top of their respective fields, 
rather than for individuals progressing toward the top at some unspecified future time. Nevertheless, 
we cannot conclude that that the petitioner's receipt of such travel funding is tantamount to his 
receipt of a nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence in the field. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classzjkation is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, a petitioner must 
show that the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for admission to 
membership. Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a given field, minimum 
education or experience, standardized test scores, grade point average, recommendations by 
Page 6 
colleagues or current members, or payment of dues, do not satisfy this criterion as such requirements 
do not constitute outstanding achievements. Further, the overall prestige of a given association is 
not determinative; the issue here is membership requirements rather than the association's overall 
reputation. 
The petitioner submitted his membership certificate for the American Phytopathological Society. 
The record, however, does not include the membership bylaws or the official admission 
requirements for this society. In this case, there is no evidence demonstrating that the petitioner 
holds membership in an organization requiring outstanding achievements its members, as judged by 
recognized national or international experts in his field or an allied one. Accordingly, the petitioner 
has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the 
work of others in the same or an alliedjield of speciJcation for which classiJcation is 
sought. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) provides that "a petition for an alien of extraordinary ability 
must be accompanied by evidence that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and 
that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." The evidence submitted 
to meet ths criterion, or any criterion, must be indicative of or consistent with sustained national or 
international acclaim2 A lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory 
definition of "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. 
fj 204.5(h)(2). 
The petitioner submitted evidence showing that he reviewed one manuscript each for Crop Protection, 
Crop Science, Journal of Plant Diseases and Protection, and Plant Pathology. We note that peer 
review is a routine element of the process by which articles are selected for publication in scientific 
journals. Occasional participation in the peer review process does not automatically demonstrate 
that an individual has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of his field. 
Reviewing manuscripts is recognized as a professional obligation of researchers who publish 
themselves in scientific journals. Normally a journal's editorial staff will enlist the assistance of 
numerous professionals in the field who agree to review submitted papers. It is common for a 
publication to ask several reviewers to review a manuscript and to offer comments. The 
publication's editorial staff may accept or reject any reviewer's comments in determining whether to 
publish or reject submitted papers. Without evidence that sets the petitioner apart fi-om others in his 
field, such as evidence that he has reviewed an unusually large number of articles for multiple journals 
or served in an editorial position for a distinguished journal, we cannot conclude that he meets this 
criterion. 
* We note that although not binding precedent, this interpretation has been upheld in Yasar v. DHS, 2006 WL 778623 *9 
(S.D. Tex. March 24, 2006) and All Pro Cleaning Sewices v. DOL et al., 2005 WL 4045866 *11 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 26, 
2005). 
Page 7 
The ~etitioner submitted an e-mail indicating that 
" 
as seeking a promotion to "~ssistht Specialist I~I" . and .. that -- 
the petitioner was selected to "serve as a member of the 'Peer Group' for her proposed merit." The 
~etitioner also submitted e-mails indicating that he was reauested to "comment~vote" as a member of 
w 
v n appointment actions for I] 
The submitted documentation states that 1 was being evaluated 
as a "Project Scientist," but it did not specify the positions off 
The plain language of this regulatory criterion requires evidence of the petitioner's 
"participation . . . as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specification for 
which classification is sought." The preceding e-mails do not specie the level of expertise of the 
petitioner's UCD coworkers which he was requested to evaluate. Further, we cannot conclude that the 
petitioner's assistance with standard personnel functions for his immediate employer (which is a 
local or institutional function) meets the plain language of this criterion or is commensurate with 
sustained national or international acclaim. Internal review of another's work is not indicative of or 
consistent with national or international acclaim and, thus, cannot serve to meet this criterion. See 
Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030,1035 (9& Cir. 2009). 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major signijicance in theJeld. 
The petitioner submitted several letters of support. We cite representative examples here. 
[The petitioner's] research at 
 involved the development and implementation of a 
forecasting system for downy mildew, a disease that causes severe loss of lettuce in 
~alifornia. [The petitioner] studied the effect of environmental conditions on the sporulation 
of the pathogen Bremia lactucae and used the results to analyze the epidemic of downy 
mildew disease in lettuce. For the first time his research considered multiple factors affecting 
the sporulation process of Bremia Iactucae. [The petitioner] is currently engaged in research 
on strawberry diseases and their control with the use of fungicides. 
[The petitioner] showed brilliant creativity in his research. He used a unique method to 
generate images of the sporulation and quantified the spores released under different relative 
humidity and light. He designed and developed several growth chamber experiments and also 
constructed a mini spore trap for the research. He discovered that light initiated the spore 
release of Bremia lacwcae. He also discovered that relative humidity affected the opening of 
stomata on the leaf surface and then influenced the spore production of the pathogen. 
Page 8 
[The petitioner] discovered that resistance to fenhexamid fungicide, a new class of fungicide, 
had existed in hit rot pathogen Botrytis cinerea in California strawberry fields and this 
fungicide was in danger of losing its efficacy. 
His discovery of volunteer strawberry plants as an inoculum source alerted the nurseries 
around the world on this issue. This provides a brand new perspective on disease control in 
nurseries. 
His new method for assessing yield loss of crops is a dynamic approach with real world 
implications. His method can be used to obtain actual yield loss under various environmental 
conditions and has great impact on how farmers in the field use yield loss models to estimate 
economic losses caused by plant diseases. 
[The petitioner] is currently working on the anthracnose disease in strawberry and he has 
made some highly significant discoveries. [The petitioner] has found that the volunteer 
strawberry plants after harvest is an important source in causing infection in new plantation. 
The epidemic of anthracnose disease has long been puzzling plant pathologists in California 
and [the petitioner's] finding is an important breakthrough towards controlling this notorious 
disease. His work also benefits strawberry growers and consumers by evaluating new 
fungicides, studying the epidemiology of diseases, and improving culture practices. 
[The petitioner] used his expertise to develop a yield loss assessment employing different 
mathematical models to evaluate the loss. He also developed very innovative new methods to 
assess the actual yield loss. This was a pioneering effort of immense practical value. His 
work in this research area and the manuscript has been published by the premium Journal of 
Plant Disease and Protection. 
Another important milestone both in his career and in the development of plant disease 
epidemiology was the first discovery of fungicide resistance in Botrytis cinerea, the pathogen 
that causes fruit rot in strawberries and also developed a method to mitigate the risk of 
disease epidemics. Due to the extensive use of fenhexamid fungicide in strawberries, the 
pathogen generated mutants which then led to a decreased efficacy in this novel fungicide. 
This problem will either result in the phase out of the fungicide, which has cost millions of 
dollars to research and develop, and market, or more frequent applications to achieve better 
control, which will make resistance in the pathogens even stronger. [The petitioner's] finding 
Page 9 
prevented a tremendous loss and his new strategies for controlling the disease give 
strawberry growers an effective tool to manage fungicide resistance in pathogens. 
While the petitioner's research is no doubt of value, it can be argued that any research must be 
shown to be original and present some benefit if it is to receive hnding and attention fiom the 
scientific community. Any Ph.D. thesis or postdoctoral research, in order to be accepted for 
graduation, publication or funding, must offer new and useful information to the pool of knowledge. 
It does not follow that every researcher who performs original research that adds to the general pool 
of knowledge has inherently made a contribution of major significance to the field as a whole. 
United 
Kingdom, states: 
fi-om June 1996 to June 1997 funded by a 
. . . 
 His project at 
investigate the disease severitylyield loss relationships, particularly 
(Pyrenopeziza brassicae) of winter oilseed rape in the UK (a serious disease in Northern 
Europe). 
This project involved extensive handling of data (held in the 1- 
from field experiments done in the UK over a number of years. He used critical point, 
multiple point, and model to regress yield or yield loss on disease severity. His work 
was published by the premium international journal Annals of Applied Biology in 1998. 
[The petitioner] is conscientious, hard-working and technically brilliant at data handling and 
computing. He is highly proficient at -a statistical program for data analysis, with 
ease and has quickly improved the research procedures. [The petitioner] is a versatile 
scientist. He was doing an empirical modeling project with me, while his Ph.D. had been in 
molecular biology. 
During his time in Lethbridge, [the petitioner] conducted the first extensive survey on the 
identification of stripe rust (Puccinia striiformis) races in Canada. [The petitioner] also spent 
about half of his time conducting molecular genetic research to identify genetic markers that 
are closely linked to the gene controlling stripe rust resistance in the wheat cultivar '- 
[The petitioner] applied a number of high tech approaches to search for resistance gene 
analogs, reverse transcript PCR for marker selection, as well as DNA cloning to isolate 
specific DNA fragments. 
[The petitioner] is constantly improving and expanding his skills and knowledge in plant 
pathology and in related fields of science. I continued to work with him after he moved to the 
- - 
e had several joint research studies on 
Page 10 
diseases of field peas. In his position at the . [the petitioner] 
increased the scope of his expertise in plant pathology. This is best evidenced by the research 
he used involving histological studies on powdery mildew (E. pisi) development in different 
field pea cultivars and the isolation of toxins produced by the causal agent of Mycosphaerella 
blight in peas (Mycosphaerella pinodes) for use in the selection of resistant germplasm lines. 
He also assessed yield loss caused by Mycosphaerella blight and quantifllng epidemics of 
this disease for decision making on disease control. He also examined the impact of 
agronomic traits, such as lodging and crop maturity, on the expression of tissue-specific 
resistance in field pea cultivars to Mycosphaerella blight. 
[The petitioner's] papers have been published in premier peer-reviewed international 
scientific journals, such as Canada Journal of Plant Pathology, Phytopathology, 
Microbiological Research, Plant Disease and Protection, Canadian Journal of Plant Science 
and Annals of Applied Biology. 
With regard to the petitioner's publication record as discussed by the regulations contain 
a separate criterion regarding the authorship of published articles. 8 C.F.R. $204.5(h)(3)(vi). We will 
not presume that evidence relating to or even meeting the scholarly articles criterion is presumptive 
evidence that the petitioner also meets this criterion. Here it should be emphasized that the regulatory 
criteria are separate and distinct from one another. Because separate criteria exist for authorship of 
scholarly articles and original contributions of major significance, USCIS clearly does not view the 
two as being interchangeable. To hold otherwise would render meaningless the statutory requirement 
for extensive evidence or the regulatory requirement that a petitioner meet at least three separate 
criteria. We will fully address the petitioner's published work under the next criterion. 
[The petitioner's] research has been directly involved in solving production problems. He 
was the first in the world to discover that volunteer strawberry plants in rotation fields 
provide the sources of several notorious diseased in strawberry, some of them subjecting the 
crop to quarantine by European countries. This discovery is extremely important since the 
rotation fields are close to new plantings; thus, are the most dangerous source for disease 
epidemics. 
[The petitioner] has also developed programs to reduce resistant strains in the pathogens and 
to prevent sudden epidemics. He recently discovered that Botrytis fruit rot pathogen has 
produced strains resistant to a new, lower-risk fungicide Elevate. This alerted both the 
chemical industry and the growers in preparing new measures to prevent an unexpected 
epidemic. He has also developed a new rotation program, which adopted several low-risk 
fungicides in order to reduce the resistant population, increase yield, and reduce the 
harmfulness to humans and environment. 
According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not only 
original but of major significance. We must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not 
superfluous and, thus, that it has some meaning. While the evidence indicates that the petitioner 
performed admirably on the research projects to which he was assigned, the submitted 
documentation does not establish that he has made original scientific contributions of "major 
significance" in his field commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim. For 
example, the record does not indicate the extent to which his work has impacted others in his field 
nationally or internationally, nor does it show that the field of plant pathology has significantly 
changed as a result of his work. 
On appeal, counsel states: "With 36 published articles and presentations, clearly the beneficiary 
qualifies under this rubric." The petitioner's appellate submission includes a citation list showing 
that his body of work has been cited approximately fifty times. We cannot ignore, however, that 
more than thirty of the submitted citations were self-citations by the petitioner's coauthors (such as 
- Self-citation ib a nokal, expected practice. Self- 
citation cannot, however, demonstrate the response of independent researchers. While the evidence 
submitted by the petitioner demonstrates some outside interest in his research findings, he has not 
shown that an aggregate of approximately 20 independent citations during his career is an indication 
that his work equates to original contributions of major significance in the field. See also Kazarian v. 
USCIS, 580 F.3d at 1036 (publications and presentations are insufficient absent evidence that they 
constitute contributions of major significance). 
In this case, the letters of recommendation are not sufficient to meet this regulatory criterion. USCIS 
may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter 
of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Commr. 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately 
responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. 
Id. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of 
eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's 
eligibility. See id. at 795-796. Thus, the content of the experts' statements and how they became 
aware of the petitioner's reputation are important considerations. Even when written by independent 
experts, letters solicited by an alien in support of an immigration petition are of less weight than 
preexisting, independent evidence of original contributions of major significance that one would 
expect of a researcher who has sustained national or international acclaim. Without evidence 
showing that the petitioner's work has been unusually influential, highly acclaimed throughout his 
field, or has otherwise risen to the level of original contributions of major significance, we cannot 
conclude that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the jield, in profssional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of his co-authorship of articles appearing in publications such as 
Canadian Journal of Plant Pathology, Phytopathology, Microbiological Research, Journal of Plant 
Diseases and Protection, Canadian Journal of Plant Science, and Annals of Applied Biology. While 
we acknowledge that we must avoid requiring acclaim withm a given criterion, it is not a circular 
Page 12 
approach to require some evidence of the scientific community's reaction to the petitioner's published 
work in a field where publication is expected. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d at 1036. As authoring 
scholarly articles is inherent to scientific re~earch,~ we will evaluate a citation history or other 
evidence of the impact of the petitioner's articles when determining their significance to the field. 
For example, numerous independent citations for an article authored by the petitioner would provide 
solid evidence that other researchers have been influenced by his work and are familiar with it. On 
the other hand, few or no citations of an article authored by the petitioner may indicate that his work 
has gone largely unnoticed by his field. As previously discussed, the petitioner submitted evidence 
showing that his body of work has been independently cited approximately twenty times. While 
these citations demonstrate some interest in his published articles, they are not sufficient to 
demonstrate that his articles have attracted a level of interest in his field commensurate with 
sustained national or international acclaim. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established 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. 
At issue for this criterion are the position the petitioner was selected to fill and the reputation of the 
entity that selected him. In other words, the position must be of such significance that the alien's 
selection to fill the position, in and of itself, is indicative of or consistent with national or international 
acclaim. 
The petitioner submitted letters of support discussing his work at- and 
the - While the has performed admirably on the research 
projects to which he was assigned, there is no evidence showing that his roles were leading or critical 
for the preceding institutions. For example, there is no organizational chart or other evidence 
documenting how the petitioner's position fell within the general hierarchy of his research institutions. 
We note that the petitioner's postdoctoral fellowships were designed to provide specialized research 
experience and training in his field of endea~or.~ With regard to the petitioner's position as an 
Appendix C of his response to the director's request for 
evidence includes salary tables showing higher designations of "Associate Project" Scientist and 
"Project" Scientist. The petitioner's evidence does not demonstrate how his role differentiated him 
fi-om the other research scientists employed by the preceding institutions, let alone their tenured faculty 
and principal investigators. For instance, there is no indication that the petitioner has served as a 
For LLBiological Scientists," the Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2008-2009 (accessed at 
httv://www.bls.~ov/oco/), states that a "solid record of published research is essential in obtaining a permanent position 
involving basic research." See http:i/data.bls.govlcgi-bin/print.ul/ocoi, accessed on November 19, 2009, copy 
incorporated into the record of proceeding. This information reinforces USCIS' position that publication of scholarly 
articles is not automatically evidence of sustained national or international acclaim, we must consider the research 
community's reaction to those articles. 
4 "Biological scientists with a Ph.D. often take temporary postdoctoral research positions that provide specialized 
research experience." See h~:lIdata.bls.~ov/cgi-binlurint.ul/oco1ocos7.h7 accessed on November 19, 2009, copy 
incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
Page 13 
principal investigator and initiated his own research projects. The documentation submitted by the 
petitioner does not establish that he was responsible for the preceding institutions' success or standing 
to a degree consistent with the meaning of "leading or critical role" and indicative of sustained national 
or international acclaim. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signi$cantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted ngs statements for 
the periods ending 11/30/07, 12/31/07, and 01/31/08. These earning statements post-date the filing of 
the petition. A petitioner, however, must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. 
55 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Regl. Comrnr. 1971). Accordingly, 
the AAO will not consider the petitioner's earnings statements from November 2007, December 
2007, and January 2008 in this proceeding. The petitioner also submitted salary tables 
indicating that the petitioner's salary level was below all of the 
Professors. The documentation submitted does not establish that the ~etitioner's salary was 
significantly high in relation to that of other researchers at let alone "in relation to otiers in 
the field." The petitioner offers no national salary statistics as a basis for comparison showing that his 
compensation was significantly high in relation to others in his field. Accordingly, the petitioner has 
not established that he meets this criterion. 
In this case, we concur with the director's finding that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate his 
receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the criteria that 
must be satisfied to establish the national or international acclaim necessary to qualifL as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The conclusion we reach by considering the evidence 
to meet each criterion separately is consistent with a review of the evidence in the aggregate. Even 
in the aggregate, the evidence does not distinguish the petitioner as one of the small percentage who 
has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). 
Review of the record 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. 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)(l)(A) of the 
Act and the petition may not be approved. 
The AAO maintains plenary power to review each appeal on a de novo basis. 5 U.S.C. 5 557(b) 
("On appeal from or review of the initial decision, the agency has all the powers which it would have 
in making the initial decision except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule."); see also Janka 
v. US. Dept. of Transp., NTSB, 925 F.2d 1147, 1149 (9th Cir. 1991). The AAO's de novo authority 
has been long recognized by the federal courts. See, e.g., Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d 
Cir. 1989). 
Page 14 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the 
benefit sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1361. Here, 
that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.