dismissed EB-1A Case: Postdoctoral Scholar

identifyingdatadelewoco
preventclearlyunwarranted
invasionof personalprivacy
PUBLICCOPY
U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
U.s. ( itizenshipand1mmiermionservice
AdministrativeAppealsOffice (AA(n
20 MassachuseusAve.,N.W., Ms 2090
Washington.DC 20529-2090
U.S.Citizenship
- and Immigration
Services
DATE: AUG 1 5 20120FFICE: NEBRASKASERVICECENTER FILE:
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetition for Alien Worker as an Alien of ExtraordinaryAbility Pursuantto
Section203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act; 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A)
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the
documents related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please
beadvisedthatanyfurtherinquiry thatyou mighthaveconcerningyourcasemustbemadeto thatollice.
If you believethe AAO inappropriatelyappliedthe law in reachingits decision,or you haveadditional
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen
in accordance with the nstruchons on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The
specificrequirementsfor filing sucha motioncanbe foundat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5.Do not file any motion
directly with the AAO. Pleasebe awarethat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresany motionto be filed
within 30 davs of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen.
Thankyou,
PerryRhew
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOITice
www.uscis.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION: The employment-basedimmigrantvisa petitionwas deniedby the Director,
NebraskaServiceCenter,on August6,2009,andis nowbeforetheAdministrativeAppealsOffice
(AAO)onappeal.TheappealwiHbedismissed.
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-basedimmigrant pursuant to section
203(b)(1)(A)of the ImmigrationandNationalityAct (theAct), 8 U.S.C.§ ll53(b)(1)(A), asan
alienof extraordinaryability asa postdoctoralscholar. The directordeterminedthatthe petitioner
hadnotestablishedtherequisiteextraordinaryability andfailed to submitextensivedocumentation
of sustainednationalor internationalacclaim.
Congressset a very high benchmarkfor aliensof extraordinaryability by requiringthrough the
statutethat the petitionerdemonstrate"sustainednational or internationalacclaim" and present
"extensivedocumentation"of hisor herachievements.Seesection203(b)(1)(A)(i)of theAct and8
C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3).Theimplementingregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)statesthatanaliencan
establishsustainednationalor internationalacclaimthroughevidenceof a one-timeachievement,
specificallya major, internationallyrecognizedaward. Absent the receiptof suchan award.the
regulationoutlinestencategoriesof specificevidence.8 C.F.R.§§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)through(x). The
petitionermustsubmitqualifying evidenceunderat leastthreeof the ten regulatorycategoriesof
evidencetoestablishthebasiceligibilityrequirements.
In the director's decision,he determinedthat the petitioner failed to establisheligibility for the
awardscriterion pursuantto the regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i),the membershipcriterion
pursuantto the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii),thepublishedmaterialcriterion pursuantto
the regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii),the judging criterion pursuantto the regulationat 8
C.F.R, § 204.5(h)(3)(iv),theoriginal contributionscriterion pursuantto the regulationat 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v), and the scholarly articles criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi).Moreover,thedirectorindicatedthatthepetitioner'soccupationdidnotapplyto
the artistic displaycriterionpursuantto the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(vii),and the
petitionerfailed to claim eligibility for theleadingor critical rolecriterionpursuantto theregulation
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), the high salary criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ix),and the commercialsuccessescriterion pursuantto the regulationat 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)(x). On appeal,counselspecificallychallengesthe director'sdecisionregardingthe
judging criterion,theoriginal contributionscriterion,thescholarlyarticlescriterion,andtheleading
or critical rolecriterion. Accordingly,theAAO considerstheotherpreviouslyclaimedcriteriato be
abandonedandwill not furtherdiscussthemon appeal.SeeSepulvedav. (J.S.Att'y Gen..401 F.3d
1226.1228n. 2 (11thCir. 2005);Hristov v.Roark,No. 09-CV-27312011,201I WL 4711885at *1,
*9 (E.D.N.Y.Sept.30,201l) (thecourtfoundtheplaintiff's claimstobeabandonedashefailedto
raisethemon appealto theAAO).
L LAW
Section203(b)of theAct states,in pertinentpart,that:
Page3
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified
immigrantswho are aliens describedin any of the following subparagraphs(A)
through(C):
(A) Alienswith extraordinaryability.-- An alienis describedin this
subparagraphif --
(i) the alien hasextraordinaryability in thesciences,
arts,education,business,or athleticswhich hasbeen
demonstratedby sustainednational 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
continueworkin theareaof extraordinaryability,and
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will
substantiallybenefitprospectivelytheUnitedStates.
U.S. Citizenshipand Immigration Services(USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization
Service(INS) haveconsistentlyrecognizedthatCongressintendedto seta very high standardfor
individualsseekingimmigrantvisasasaliensof extraordinaryability. SeeH.R.723 101"Cong.,2d
Sess.59 (1990);56 Fed.Reg.60897,60898-99(Nov. 29. 1991). Theterm extraordinaryability"
refersonly to thoseindividualsin thatsmallpercentagewho haverisento thevery topof thefield of
endeavor.M: 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(2).
The regulation at 8 C.l .R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstratethe alien's
sustainedacclaimandtherecognitionof hisor herachievementsin thefield. Suchacclaimmustbe
establishedeither through evidenceof a one-time achievement(that is, a major. international
recognizedaward)or throughthesubmissionof qualifying evidenceunderat leastthreeof the ten
categoriesof evidencelistedat 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x).
In 2010,the U.S.Court of Appealsfor the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewedthe denialof a
petitionfiled underthis classification.Kazarianv. USCIS,596F.3d I I15 (9th Cir. 2010).Although
the court upheldthe AAO's decisionto deny the petition, the court took issuewith the AAO's
evaluationof evidencesubmittedto meeta given evidentiarycriterion) With respectto thecriteria
at 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(iv)and (vi), the court concludedthat while USCISmay haveraised
legitimateconcernsaboutthe significanceof the evidencesubmittedto meetthosetwo criteria,
thoseconcernsshouldhavebeenraisedin a subsequent"final meritsdetermination." /d. at I121-
' Specificahy, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantiveor evidentiary reymrements
beyondthosesetforth in theregulationsat 8 C+.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv)and8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi).
Page4
ThecourtstatedthattheAAO sevaluationrestedonanimproperunderstandingof theregulations.
Insteadof parsingthesignificanceof evidenceaspartof theinitial inquiry.thecourtstatedthat"the
proper procedureis to count the typesof evidenceprovided (which the AAO did) and if the
petitionerfailedto submitsufficientevidence,"the properconclusionis thattheapplicanthasfailed
to satisfythe regulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence(asthe AAO concluded)."Id. at
1122(citingto8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)).
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approachwhere the evidenceis first counted and then
consideredin thecontextof a final meritsdetermination. In this matter,theAAO will review the
evidenceundertheplain languagerequirementsof eachcriterionclaimed. As thepetitionerdid not
submitqualifying evidenceunderat leastthreecriteria,the properconclusionis that thepetitioner
hasfailed to satisfytheregulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence.Id.
11 ANALYSIS
A. EvidentiaryCriteria2
Evidenceof thealien'sparticipation eitherindividually or on apanel.asajudge of
the work of others in the same or an allied field of specificationfor which
classification is sought.
Theplain languageof theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv)requires"[elvidenceof thealien's
participation,eitherindividually or on a panel,asajudge of the work of othersin the sameor an
allied field of specificationfor which classificationis sought." Basedupona reviewof therecordof
proceeding,thepetitionersubmittedsufficientdocumentaryevidenceestablishingthatheminimally
meetsthe plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv).Therefore,the AAO
withdrawsthefindingsof thedirectorfor thiscriterion.
Accordingly.thepetitionerestablishedthathemeetsthiscriterion.
Evidence of the alien's original scientific. scholarly. artistic. athletic, or business-
relatedcontributionsof majorsignificancein thefield.
I heplain languageof theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(v)requires"[e|videnceof theahen's
original scientific,scholarly,artistic,athletic,or business-relatedcontributionsof majorsignificance
in the field." llere, the evidencemustbe reviewedto seewhetherit risesto the level of original
scientificor scholarly-relatedcontributions"of majorsignificancein thefield." Thephrase"major
significance"is not superfluousand, thus,it hassomemeaning.Silvermanv. Eastrich Multiple
hwestorFund,/ P 5l F.3d28,31(3* Cir. 1995)quotedinAPWUv.Potter,343F.3d619,626
(2" Cir.Sep15,2003).
On appeal, the petitioner does not claim to meet any of the regulatory categoriesof evidence not discussedin this
decision.
Page5
A review of the recordof proceedingreflectsthat at the initial filing of the petition,the petitioner
submitteddocumentaryevidencereDectingthat 16of his scholarlyandscientificarticleshavebeen
cited 128timesbut thatincludesIS self-citations;thusreflectingI 13independentcitationsby other
scientistsandresearchers.It is furthernotedthatin responseto thedirector'srequestfor additional
evidencepursuantto the regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(8),the petitionersubmittedadditional
citationsof his work thatwerepublishedafter the filing of his petition. 8 C.F.R.§§ 103.2(b)(1),
(12):MatterofKatighak.14l&N Dec.45,49(Reg'lComnir 197I).A petitioncannotbeapproved
at a futuredateafterthepetitionerbecomeseligible undera newsetof facts. Matter oflzammi, 22
l&N Dec.169,175(Comm'r1998).Thatdecisionfurtherprovides,citingMatterofBardouille,18
J&N Dec. I 14(BlA 1981).thatUSClScannot"considerfactsthatcomeinto beingonly subsequent
to the filing of a petition." Id. at 176. As such,thecitation to thepetitioner^swork thatoccurred
afterthefiling of thepetitionwill notbeconsideredto determinethepetitioner'seligibility for this
enteron.
While the numberof total citations is a factor, it is not the only factor lo be consideredin
determiningthe petitioner's eligibility for this criterion. Generally-the number of citations is
reDectiveof the pelitioners original Andingsand that the field has taken some interestto the
petitioners work. Ilowever, it is not anautomaticindicatorthat thepetitioner^swork hasbeenof
nzajor signißcancein the field. Enthis case, the petitioner submitteddocumentaryevidence
reflecting that his highestcited article. "Poly (hydroxybutyrate-co-hydroxyhexanoate)Promoted
Productionof ExtracellularMatrix of Articular CartilageChondrocytesin Vitro (Biomaterials,
2003)hasbeenindependentlycited 28 times. Moreover, 12of the petitioner'sarticleshavebeen
independentlycitedlessthantentimes,includingfourarticlesthathaveneverbeencitedbyothers.
The AAO is not persuadedthatsuchcitationsare reflectivethatthe petitioner'swork hasbeenof
major significancein the field. Furthermore,the petitionerfailed to submitany documentary
evidencedemonstratingthathisarticleshavebeenunusuallyinfluential,suchasarticlesthatdiscuss
in-depththepetitioner'sfindingsor creditthepetitionerwith influencingor impactingthefield. In
this case.the petitioner'sdocumentaryevidenceis not reflectiveof havinga significantimpacton
the field. Merely submittingdocumentationreflectingthatthepetitioner'swork hasbeencited by
othersin their publishedmaterial is insufficient to establisheligibility for this criterion without
documentarvevidencereDeclingthatthe petitioner'swork hasbeenof a major significancein the
field. The AAO is notpersuadedthatthemoderatecitationsof thepetitioner'sarticlesarereflective
of thesignificanceof his work in thefield. Thepetitionerfailed to establishhow thosefindingsor
citationsof hiswork by othershavesignificantlycontributedto hisfield asawhole.
The petitioner's evidenceincludesdocumentationthat he has presentedhis findinus at various
scientificconferencessuchasthe2008SymposiumonAdvancedWoundCareandWoundHealing
SocietyMeeting. Manyprofessionalfields regularlyholdconferencesandsymposiato presentnew
work, discussnew findings,and to networkwith other professionals.Theseconferencesare
promoted and sponsoredby professionalassociations,businesses,educationalinstitutions, and
government agencies. Participationin such events, however, does not equateto an original
contributionof major significancein the field, Thereis no evidenceshowingthatthe petitioner's
Paue6
conferencepresentationshavebeenfrequentlycited by independentresearchersor haveotherwise
significantlyimpactedthefield.
Again, while thepresentationof the petitioner'swork demonstratesthat his work wassharedwith
othersand may be acknowledgedas original contributionsbasedon the selectionof them to be
presented,theAAO is notpersuadedthatpresentationsof thepetitioner'swork at severalvenuesare
sufficientevidenceestablishingthat the petitioner'swork is of major significanceto the Geldasa
wholeandnot limited to theengagementsin whichtheywerepresented.The petitionerfailedto
establish,for example.that the presentationswere of major significanceso as to establishtheir
impactor influencebeyondtheaudienceattheconferences.
Moreover,the petitionersubmitteda "Certification of Patent"for "A Methodfor Productionof 3-
hydroxydecanoate''on March 17,2004,listing thepetitionerasoneof theinventors. However.the
certificalefailsto indicatetheissuingauthorityof thepatent.Regardless,theAAO haspreviously
statedthat a patentis not necessarilyevidenceof a track recordof successwith somedegreeof
influenceoverthefield asawhole. SeeMatter ofNew YorkStateDepartmentof Transportation,22
l&N Dec. 215. 221 n. 7. (Comm'r 1998). Rather,the significanceof the innovationmustbe
determinedon a case-by-casebasis. Id. A patentrecognizestheoriginality of the idea,but it does
notdemonstratethatthepetitionermadeacontributionof majorsignificancein thefic)d throughhis
developmentof this idea. The petitioner failed to establishthat his patent hasbeen of major
significancein thefield.
Furthermore, a review of the record of proceeding reflects that the petitioner submitted
recommendationletters. In general theauthorsof thelettersreflectthattheywererequestedby the
petitioner to review selecteddocumentaryevidence. including the petitioners self-compiled
curriculum vitae.and providetheir professionalopinions. For example, statedthat he
"doles) 1bis evaluation merelv on the basis of [the petitioner's] researchpublications and
presentationsandalsohis extensivecurriculumvitae 11doesnot appearthatDr. wasaware
of thepetitioneror hisoriginal contributionsprior to beingcontactedby thepetitioner. Further,the
determinationof thepetitioner'soriginalcontributionsis not basedon theauthors'prior knowledge
of the petitioneror his work but merelyon the evaluationof the documentsgiven to themby the
permoner.
Regardless,while the recommendationletters praise the petitioner for his work in the
bioengineeringfield, they fail to establishthat his contributionsare of major significancein the
field. The lettersprovide only generalstatementswithout offering any specific information to
establishhow thepetitioner'swork hasbeenofmajor significance.For instance,Wriefly
indicatedthe petitioner'soriginal researchand findings.suchas the biosynthesisof the chiral
chemicalsandscarlesswoundhealing,however,Dr. did notprovideanyexplanationasto how
the petitioner's researchhas significantly impacted the field, so as to demonstrateoriginal
contributionsof major significancein the field. While the AAO doesnot disputethe petitioner's
original research,the letter doesnot establishthat his original researchhas beenof major
significancein the field consistentwith the plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v).
Page7
Similarly, Dr. nadebroadstatementswithout specificallyexplaininghow thepetitioner's
researchhas beenof major significancein the field. For example,Dr. statedthat the
petitioner's research"has absolutelycontributedto the synthesisof chiral medicinesand other
valuablesubstances "[has] advancedour knowledgeof fatty acid metabolism,"and"renewedthe
emphasison crystalbehaviorof biomaterialsin tissueengineeringapplications." Again,
demonstratedthe petitioner's original contributionsbut failed to provide any further details to
supportthe statementsreflecting that they havebeenof major significancein the field. Simply
claiming that the petitioner's contributions have been of major significance in the field is
insufficient without supporting the statementswith specific, detailed information, so as to
demonstratethattheyhavebeen,in fact,of majorsignificancein thefield.
Likewise,while Dr identifiedthepetitioners researchfindings,he failed
to demonstratethat the petitioner'soriginal contributionshavebeenof major significancein the
field. Instead,Dr. ,mphasizedthepetitioner'soriginal findingsandreferredto thepetitioner's
researchbeingpublishedin professionalandscientificjournals. The regulationscontaina separate
criterionregardingtheauthorshipof scholarlyarticles. 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(vi).TheAAO will
notpresumethatevidencerelatingto or evenmeetingthescholarlyarticlescriterionis presumptive
evidencethatthepetitioneralsomeetsthis criterion. To hold otherwisewould rendermeaningless
theregulatoryrequirementthatapetitionermeetatleastthreeseparatecriteria. Moreover,while the
publicationof thepetitioner'sresearchandfindingsestablishtheoriginality of his work, it doesnot
demonstratethathis work hasbeenof majorsignificancein the field. TheAAO is not persuaded
thateveryresearcheror scientistwho publisheshisor herwork in aprofessionalor scientificjournal
alsodemonstratesthatthework is of majorsignificancein thefield. Dr. lackof anyspecific
intonnation indicatinethe sienificanceof the petitioner'swork on the field is insufficient to meet
theregulationat8C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(v).
Therecommendationlettersalsospeculateonthepotentialimpactthatthepetitioner'sresearchmay
haveat somepoint in the future. For example,Dr. statedthat the petitioner"has
madea significantcontributionto thescarcuringtherapies,whichcanbenefitmillionsof patients
[emphasisadded|.'' Further.Dr. statedthat the petitioner'sresearch"may leadto the
identilication and modification of the important medicalsfor scartreatmentlemphasisadded]
"|ijt will be an excellent advancementfor the clinical practice [emphasisadded):' and the
petitioner's "contribution will benefit a lot of patientsin the United Stateslemphasisadded|
Moreover.Dr. statedthatthepetitioner's"lindings will significantlybenefitthechiral synthesis
of many chemicals,which will promotethe developmentof the chiral pharmacologicalindustry
(emphasisadded| the petitioner research"will promote cancer researchand potentially save
millions of lives in the nearfklare [emphasisadded]." and the petitioner's "contributions will
benefit Americanswith chronic non-healingwounds and reducehealthcarecosts [emphasis
addedp
A petitionercannotfile a petitionunderthis classificationbasedon the expectationof future
eligibility. Giventhedescriptionsin termsof futureapplicabilityanddeterminationsthatmayoccur
at a laterdate.it appearsthat the petitioner'sresearch.while original, is still ongoingandthat the
Page8
findings he hasmadeare not currentlybeing implementedin his field. Again, while the AAO
acknowledgestheoriginality of the petitioner'sfindings,the lettersdo not indicatethat thefield is
widely applyingthepetitioners researchfindings,soasto establishthatthesefindingshavealready
impactedthe field in a significant manner. Accordingly, while the AAO does not dispute the
originality of thepetitioner'sresearchandfindings,aswell asthe factthatthe field hastakensome
notice of his work. the actual presentimpact of the petitioner's work has not beenestablished.
Rather,thepetitioner'sreferencesappearto speculateabouthow thepetitioner'slindingsmayaffect
thefield atsomepointin thefuture. Eligibility mustbeestablishedatthetimeof filing. 8 C.F.R.
§§ 103.2(b)(1),(12). Whetherreferencinganimmigrantor a nonimmigrantclassification,caselaw
requiresthat an alienapplyingfor a benefit,or a petitionerseekingan immigrationstatusfor a
beneficiary,mustdemonstrateeligibility for thebenefitor thestatusatthetime thepetitionis filed.
SeeMatterofPazandeh,19I&N Dec.884,886(BIA 1989)(citingMatterofAtembe,19I&N Dec.
427, 429 (BIA 1986):Matter of Drigo, 18 I&N Dec. 223, 224-225(BIA 1982);Matter of
Bardon///e.18I&N Dec.at 116)). A petitionmaynot be approvedif thebeneficiaryor theself-
petitionerwasnotqualifiedat thepriority date.SeeMatter ofKatighak, 14I&N Dec.at49;seealso
Matter of Michelin Tire Corp,. 17 I&N Dec. 248, 249 (Reg'l Comm'r 1978) regarding
nonimmigrantpetitions. The RegionalCommissionerin Matterof Wingx TeaHouse.16I&N Dec.
158.160(Reg'lComm'r 1977)emphasizestheimportanceof notobtaininga prioritydatepriorto
beingeligible,basedon futureexperience.This follows thepolicyof preventingaffectedparties
from securinga priority date in the hopethat they will subsequentlybe able to demonstrate
eligibility. In fact, this principle has been extendedbeyondan alien's eligibility for the
chissificationsought. Forexample,anemployermustestablishits ability to paytheprofferedwage
asof thedateof filing. SeeMatter ofGreat Wall, 16l&N Dec. 142,144-145(Act. Reg'l Comm'r
1977),which providesthat a petition should not becomeapprovabicundera new set of facts.
Ultimately. in order to be meritoriousm fact, a petition must meetthe statutoryand regulatory
requirementsfor approvalasof thedateit wasfiled. Ogandipev. Makaxey,541 E3d 257,26) (4*
Cir.2()()S).
Manyof the lettersproffereddo in fact discussfar morepersuasivelythe futurepromiseof the
petitioner'sresearchandtheimpactthatmayresultfrom hiswork, ratherthanhow hispastresearch
already qualifies as a contribution of major significance in the field. The assertionthat the
petitioner'sresearchresultsarelikely to be influential is not adequateto establishthat his findings
arealreadyrecognizedasmajorcontributionsin thefield. While theexpertspraisethe petitioner's
researchandwork asbothnovelandof greatpotentialinterest,thefactremainsthatanymeasurable
impactthatresultsfrom thepetitioner'sresearchwill likely occurin thefuture.
While thosewho submittedrecommendationlettersof the petitioner'sbehalfdescribehis work as
"extraordinary,"thereis insufficientdocumentaryevidencedemonstratingthatthepetitioner'swork
is of majorsignificance.Thisregulatorycriterionnotonly requiresthepetitionerto makeoriginal
contributions,theregulatorycriterionalsorequiresthosecontributionsto beof majorsignificance.
TheAAO is notpersuadedby vague,solicitedlettersthatsimplyrepeattheregulatorylanguagebut
do notexplainhow thepetitioner'scontributionshavealreadyinriuencedthefield. Vauue.solicited
lettersfrom local colleaguesthat do not specificallyidentify contributionsor providespecific
examplesof how thosecontributionsinfluencedthe field areinsufficient. Kazarianv. USCIS,580
Page9
F.3d 1030,1036(9th Cir. 2009)aff'd in part 596 F.3d 1115(9th Cir. 2010). In 2010,theKazarian
court reiteratedthattheAAO's conclusionthatthe"letters from physicsprofessorsattestingto [the
petitioner's]contributionsin thefield" wereinsufficientwas"consistentwith therelevantregulatory
language."596 F.3d at I122. Moreover,the lettersconsideredaboveprimarily containbare
assertionsof the petitioner'sstatusin the field without providing specificexamplesof how those
contributionsrise to a level consistentwith major significancein the field. Merely repeatingthe
languageof thestatuteor regulationsdoesnot satisfythepetitioner'sburdenof proof. FedinBros.
Co.,Ltd. v. Sava,724F. Supp.I103, 1108(E.D.N.Y. 1989),affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d.Cir. 1990):
Avyr Associates,/nc. n Meissner,1997WL 188942at *5 (S.D.N.Y.).Thelack of supporting
evidencegivestheAAO nobasisto gaugethesignificanceof thepetitioner'spresentcontributions.
Further,USCISmay, in its discretion,useas advisoryopinionstatementssubmittedas expert
testimony.SeeMatterof CaronInternational,19I&N Dec.791,795(Commr.1988).However,
USCISis ultimatelyresponsiblefor makingthe final determinationregardingan alien's eligibility
for the benefitsought. Id. The submissionof lettersof supportfrom the petitioner'spersonal
contactsis not presumptiveevidenceof eligibility; USCISmayevaluatethecontentof thoseletters
asto whethertheysupportthe alien's eligibility. Seeid. at 795;seealsoMatter of V-K-, 24 l&N
Dec.500.n.2(BIA 2008). Thus,thecontentof thewriters' statementsandhow theybecameaware
of the petitioner's reputationare importantconsiderations. Even when written by independent
experts,letterssolicitedby an alien in supportof an immigrationpetition areof lessweight than
preexisting,independentevidenceof originalcontributionsof majorsignificance.
Again. theplain languageof theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(v)requires"[ejvidenceof the
alien's original scientific.scholarly,artistic,athletic,or business-relatedcontributionsof major
signVicancein thefield [emphasisadded]." Without additional,specificevidenceshowingthatthe
petitioner'swork has beenunusuallyinnuential,widely appliedthroughouthis field, or has
otherwiserisento thelevelof contributionsof majorsignificance,theAAO cannotconcludethathe
meetsthiscriterion.
Accordingly,thepetitionerfailedto establishthathemeetsthiscriterion.
Eridence ofthe alien s authorship ofscholarly articles in thefield in professional or
major tradepublicationsor othermajormedia.
Theplain languageof theregulationat8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi)requires"[e]videnceof thealien's
authorshipof scholarlyarticlesin the field, in professionalor majortradepublicationsor other
majormedia." Dasedupona reviewof therecordof proceeding,thepetitionersubmittedsufficient
documentaryevidenceestablishingthatheminimally meetstheplain languageof theregulationat8
C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). Therefore,the AAO withdrawsthe findingsof the directorfor this
entenon.
Accordingly,thepetitionerestablishedthathemeetsthiscriterion.
Page 10
&idence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations
or establishments that have a distinguished reputation.
At the initial filing of the petition, the petitioner claimed eligibility for this criterion basedon
recommendationletters hv Dr. Dr. Dr. and Dr. In the
director'srequestfor additionalevidencepursuantto the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(8),the
directorstated:
The recorddiscussesthe petitioner's researchwhile working at "a world-leading
researchinstitute." While scientificpursuitsarecertainlyworthy andimportant.the
evidenceis not sufficientthat this role goesbeyondthe generalcareerpathof a
researchscientist/associate.
In responseto thedirector'srequestfor additionalevidence,counseldid not contestor addressthe
director's issuesor concernsregardingthis criterion. In the director's denial of the petition, the
directorconcludedthatthepetitionerdid notclaimto meetthiscriterion.Onappeal,counselstates
thatthepetitionerdid claimeligibility for thiscriterionattheinitial filing of thepetition. Counsel
doesnot addresson appealwhy hedid not respondto thedirector'srequestfor additionalevidence
regardingthis criterion. Moreover,on appeal,counselsubmitsessentiallythesameargumentthat
hemadeat theinitial filing of thepetitionby simply quotingthereferenceletters. Notwithstanding,
theAAO will determinewhetherthereferencelettersdemonstratethepetitioner'seligibility for this
enter on.
The plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires"[ejvidence that the
alien hasperformedin a leading or critical role for organizationsor establishmentsthat havea
distinguishedreputation[emphasisadded]." In general,a leadingrole is evidencedfrom therole
itself,andacriticalroleisonein whichthealienwasresponsiblefor thesuccessor standingof the
organzahon or establishment. Moreover,the businessor natureof the organizationis not
determinative;rathertheissuehereistheorganization'soverallreputation.
In th letter.he statedthat the petitionerwas"an indispensableresearcherin rny research
group {at TsinghuaUniversity in Beijing. China]." However, Dr. failed to discussthe
petitioner'srole in theresearchgroup,department,or universityasa whole. Instead,asindicatedin
theoriginal contributionscriterion,Dr. >rimarilydiscussedthe petitioner'soriginal research
andfindings. Without specificinfomaationdemonstratinghow thepetitioner'srole wasleadingor
critical, simply stating that the petitioner was "indispensable"or his position was "key" is
insufficient to meettheregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii). Furthermore,thepetitionerfailed
to submitany documentaryevidenceto establishthat TsinghuaUniversityhasa distinguished
reputation.
Similarly. Dr. alsoindicatedthatthe petitionerhasbeena "key researcher"in thegroupat the
Departmentof Surgery at the University of Southern Cahfornia and in the Departmentof
OrthopaedicSurgeryat theUniversityof California,LosAngeles.However,besidesservingin a
role as a researcher,Dr. failed to provide sufficient specific informationto establishthat the
Page1l
petitionerhasperformedin a leadingor critical role. Onceagain,Dr. Jiscussedthepetitioner's
researchbut failed to demonstratehow the petitioner'srole wasleadingor critical Moreover.the
petitionerfailed to submitanydocumentaryevidencedemonstratingthattheDepartmentof Surgery
attheUniversityof SouthernCaliforniaor theDepartmentof OrthopaedicSurgeryat theUniversity
of California,LosAngeleshasadistinguishedreputation.
Regardingthereferencelettersfrom Dr. andDr :heyindicatethattheiropinionsarebased
on documentationthat was given to them by the petitioner rather than personalor firsthand
knowledgeof thepetitioner'sroles. Forexample,Dr. indicatedthat he"thoroughlyreviewed
[the petitioner's]othersupportingdocumentationpresentedto [himj" and basedhis opinion asan
independentexperLl ettersmaygenerallybedividedintotwotypesof testimonialevidence:expert
opinion evidenceand written testimonialevidence. Opinion testimony is basedon one's well-
qualifiedbeliefor idea,ratherthandirectknowledgeof thefactsat issue.Blacks LawDictionm1
1515(8th lid. 2007)(defining"opiniontestimony").Written testimonialevidence,on the other
hand,is testimonyaboutfacts,suchaswhethersomethingoccurredor did not occur,basedon the
witness' direct knowledge. Id. (defining "written testimony"); see also id at 1514 (defining
"anirmativetestimony"). Further,dependingon thespecificity,detail,andcredibilityof a letter,
USCISmay give the documentmoreor lesspersuasiveweight in a proceeding.The Boardof
ImmigrationAppeals(theBoard)hasheldthattestimonyshouldnotbedisregardedsimplybecause
it is "self-serving."See,e.g.,Matterof S-A-,22 I&N Dec.1328,1332(BIA 2000)(citingcases).
The Board also held. however: "We not only encourage,but require the introduction of
corroborativetestimonialanddocumentaryevidence,whereavailable."Id. If testimonialevidence
lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for the petitioner to submit
corroborativeevidence.Matterof Y-B, 21I&N Dec.I 136(BIA 1998).
While the lettersfrom Dr. andDr. id not demonstratethepetitioner'seligibility for this
criterion,Dr. andDr. at leastworkedandsupervisedthe petitionerasopposedto the
lettersfrom Dr.Mmd Dr who haveneverworkedwith thepetitioner. Regardless,Dr.
simplyindicatedthatthepetitioneris a "key scientistin Dr. labat the Departmentof
OrthopaedicSurgeryof the Universityof California,I-asAngeles" andDr. simplyindicated
that the petitioner plays an active and leading role in various projectsaiming to improve our
knowledge and presenttechnology in wound healing and tissue engineering" Neither letter
providedanyfurtherelaborationon therolesof thepetitionerthatwould suggesta leadingor critical
role. In fact. Dr. did not evenindicatewherethe petitionerperformedhis "active and leading
role."
As discussedabove,thereferencelettersfail to reflectthatthepetitionerhasperformedin a leading
or critical role for organizationsor establishmentsthathavea distinguishedreputationconsistent
with theplainlanguageof theregulationat8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii).Furthermore,thepetitioner
failedto submitanydocumentaryevidence,for example,to demonstratethatthepetitioner'sroles
wereleadingor criticalwhencomparedto theotherresearchers.Again,theAAO is notpersuaded
by vague,solicitedlettersthatsimplyrepeatthe regulatorylanguagebut do not explainhow the
petitioner's roles were leading or critical. Merely repeatingthe languageof the statute or
regulationsdoesnot satisfythepetitioner'sburdenof proof. SeeFedinBros.Co.,/.td. n Sava,724
Page12
F. Supp.at i 108,affd, 905 F. 2d at 41;Avyr Associates,Inc. v. Meissner,1997WL 188942at *5.
The lack of supportingevidencegivesthe AAO no basisto gaugethe significanceof the roles
performedby thepetitioner.In addition,thepetitionerfailedto submitanydocumentaryevidence
establishingthat TsinghuaUniversity, the Departmentof Surgeryat the University of Southern
California,or the Departmentof OrthopaedicSurgeryat the Universityof California, Los Angeles
hasadislinguishedreputation.
Again, theplain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii)requires1eJvidencethat
the alien hasperformedin a leadingor critical role for organizationsor establishmentsthat havea
distinguishedreputation The burdenis on thepetitionerto establishthat hemeetseveryelement
of lhis criterion. Wilhout documentaryevidencedemonstratingthatthepetitionerhasperformedin
a leadingor critical role for organizationsor establishmentsthathavea distinguishedreputation,the
AAO cannotconcludethatthepetitionermeetsthiscriterion.
Accordingly,thepetitionerfailedto establishthathemeetsthiscriterion.
B. Summary
Thepetitionerhasfailedto satisfytheantecedentregulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence.
III. CONCLUSION
The documentationsubmittedin supportof a claim of extraordinaryability must clearly
demonstratethatthealienhasachievedsustainednationalor internationalacclaimandis oneof the
smallpercentagewhohasrisentotheverytopof thefieldof endeavor.
Even if the petitioner had submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary
categories,in accordancewith the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a final merits
determinationthatconsidersall of theevidencein the contextof whetheror not thepetitionerhas
demonstrated:(l) a ''level of expertiseindicatingthattheindividual is oneof thatsmallpercentage
who haverisen to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor"and (2) "that the alien hassustained
nationalor internationalacclaimandthathis or herachievementshavebeenrecognizedin the field
of expertise." 8 C.F.R.§§204.5(h)(2)and(3); seealsoKazarian,596F.3dat i i 19-20. While the
AAO concludesthattheevidenceis not indicativeof a level of expertiseconsistentwith thesmall
percentageat thevery top of thefield or sustainednationalor internationalacclaim,theAAO need
notexplainthatconclusionin a final meritsdetermination.' Rather.theproperconclusionis thatthe
' The AAO maintainsde novo review of all questionsof fact and law. SeeSoltane w Dal, 381 I .3d 143, 145(3d Cir.
2004h In anyfutureproceeding,theAAO maintainsthejurisdictiontoconducta final meritsdeterminationastheoffice
that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(ii). Seealso section 103(a)(1) of the Act; section
204(b)of theAct; DHS DelegationNumber0150.1(effectiveMarch 1, 2003);8 C.F.R.§ 2.1 (2003);8 C.F.R.
§ 103.l(f)(3)(iii) (2003);Matter of Aurelio, 19 I&N Dec.458, 460 (BIA 1987)(holding that legacyINS, now
USCIS, is the sole authority with thejurisdiction to decide visa petitions).
Page13
petitionerhasfailed to satisfytheantecedentregulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence.hl.
at 1I22.
The petitionerhasnot establishedeligibility pursuantto section203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the
petitionmaynotheapproved.
Theburdenof proof in visapetitionproceedingsremainsentirelywith thepetitioner. Section291of
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustainedthat burden. Accordingly. the
appealwill bedismissed.
ORDER: Theappealisdismissed.