dismissed EB-1A Case: Research Science

identifying data deleted to 
pmvmt clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: LIN 05 121 51264 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: J~JN 0 7 2007 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Lmrmgration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 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. 
Robert P. Wiemam, Chief 
.+.- 
Administrative Appeals Office 
LIN05 121 51264 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in the sciences, pursuant to 
section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1 1 53(b)(l)(A). The 
director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim 
necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief and additional evidence. For the reasons discussed below, we 
uphold the director's findings. We reach our conclusion that the petitioner has not established 
sustained national or international acclaim both by considering the evidence under each criterion to 
which it relates and in the aggregate. 
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 to the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) 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, 60898-9 (November 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. 5 204.5(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. 
LIN 05 121 51264 
Page 3 
This petition seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as a research scientist. 
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, international 
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. The petitioner has submitted evidence that, he claims, meets the 
following criteria. ' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
the petitioner's Ph.D. advisor at the Bogomoletz Institute of Physiology, asserts 
that in 1994 the petitioner received a grant from the International Science Foundation and that in 1995 
he received the "Grant of President of Ukraine to the [Olutstanding Young Scientists." The petitioner 
did not submit the grants themselves or any information about these grants. The petitioner also 
submitted a notice advising hm that he had been approved for a Scientist Development Grant fi-om the 
American Heart Association. 
As discussed by the director, research grants simply fund a scientist's work. Every successful scientist 
engaged in research, of which there are hundreds of thousands, receives funding from somewhere. 
Obviously the past achievements of the principal investigator are a factor in grant proposals. The 
fbnding institution has to be assured that the investigator is capable of performing the proposed 
research. Nevertheless, a research grant is principally designed to fund future research, and not to 
honor or recognize past achievement. 
On appeal, counsel does not challenge the director's conclusion that the petitioner's research grants 
cannot serve to meet this criterion and we uphold the director's finding on this issue. Thus, the 
petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien S membership in associations in the field for which classzj?cation is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as ~udged by recognized national 
or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of membership in the following associations: the Biophysical 
SocleTv. 
the American Heart Association and the New York Academy of Sciences. In addition, 
asserts that the petitioner took "an active part in the founding [ofl the Ukrainian Physiological 
Society and in the organization of [the] 1 st Meeting of [the] Ukrainian Physiological Society in 1995. 
He is [a] member of [the] Ukrainian Biophysical Society from 1998." The petitioner did not submit 
1 
 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
LIN05 121 51264 
Page 4 
membership confirmation of his Ukrainian membershps fi-om the societies themselves or the program 
for the 1995 conference listing him as an organizer. 
The materials from the Biophysical Society reflect that the society is "open to scientists who share the 
stated purpose of the Society and who have educational, research, or practical experience in biophysics 
or in an allied scientific field." While the society does elect emeritus members, the petitioner did not 
submit evidence that he is an emeritus member or documentation regarding the membership criteria for 
emeritus members. While the petitioner did not submit the membership criteria for the New York 
Academy of Sciences, the materials submitted reveal that it has approximately 20,000 members. The 
record contains no information about the other associations of which the petitioner is a member. 
The director concluded that the petitioner had not established that he was a member of an association 
that requires outstanding achievements of its members. Counsel does not challenge this conclusion on 
appeal. We concur with the director that the petitioner has not established that any of the associations 
of which he is a member require outstanding achievements of their members. Thus, the petitioner has 
not established that he meets this criterion. 
Published materials about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien 's work in the Jield for which classz3cation is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
The petitioner submitted citations, acknowledgements in articles by colleagues at Texas Tech 
University and his inclusion in Who's Who in America. The director concluded that articles which cite 
the petitioner's work, which are primarily about the author's own work, not the petitioner, cannot be 
considered published material about the petitioner. The director hrther concluded that inclusion in a 
"vanity press" cannot serve to meet this criterion. 
Counsel does not challenge the director's conclusions on appeal and we concur with the director. Thus, 
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 alliedfield of speciJcation for which classzfication is sought. 
The petitioner submitted two letters from a colleague at Texas Tech University requesting that the 
petitioner review manuscripts for Neurocomputing and materials about that journal. The director 
concluded that these minimal review duties in a separate field could not serve to meet this criterion. On 
appeal, counsel does not challenge this conclusion. 
We concur with the director. We cannot ignore that scientific journals are peer reviewed and rely on 
many scientists to review submitted articles. Thus, peer review is routine in the field; not every peer 
reviewer enjoys sustained national or international acclaim. Without evidence that sets the petitioner 
apart from others in his field, such as evidence that he has reviewed an unusually large number of 
LIN 05 121 51264 
Page 5 
articles, received independent requests from a substantial number of journals, or served in an editorial 
position for a distinguished journal, we cannot conclude that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientzfic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field 
The petitioner relies on his publication record and reference letters to meet this criterion. The 
director concluded that that the majority of the letters were from the petitioner's immediate circle of 
colleagues and did not set the petitioner apart from others in his field. On appeal, counsel reviews 
the reference letters and the petitioner's publication record. 
The opinions of experts in the field, while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a 
successfbl claim of sustained national or international acclaim. CIS may, in its discretion, use as 
advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 
I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm. 1988). However, CIS 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; CIS may evaluate the 
content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795-796. CIS 
may even give less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated, in accord with other information or 
is in any way questionable. Id. at 795; See also Matter ofsoffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 
1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
In evaluating the reference letters, we note that letters containing mere assertions of widespread 
acclaim and vague claims of contributions are less persuasive than letters that specifically identify 
contributions and provide specific examples of how those contributions have influenced the field. 
In addition, letters from independent references who were previously aware of the petitioner through 
his reputation and who have applied his work are far more persuasive than letters from independent 
references who were not previously aware of the petitioner and are merely responding to a 
solicitation to review the petitioner's cumculum vitae and work and provide an opinion based solely 
on this review. Ultimately, evidence in existence prior to the preparation of the petition cames 
greater weight than new materials prepared especially for submission with the petition. An 
individual with sustained national or international acclaim should be able to produce unsolicited 
materials reflecting that acclaim. 
The petitioner received his Ph.D. in Biophysics from the Bogomoletz Institute of Physiology in 1995. 
The petitioner then worked as a research associate at the University of Cologne, Germany, through 
1997. According to his curriculum vitae, the petitioner then spent one year as a senior research 
Bogomoletz Institute of Physiology. The petitioner then joined the laboratory of m~ 
at Texas Tech University. The petitioner ultimately followed 
State University. to Ohio 
LIN05 121 51264 
Page 6 
indicates that he was the petitioner's Ph.D. scientific advisor at the Bogomoletz Institute of 
He asserts that the petitioner "used electrophysicologica1 patch-clamp technique and 
morphological methods to study alterations in the proces 
 ation in primary neuronal culture 
and in cancer transformed neuronal cell lines." While 
 asserts that this research "is still 
important for understanding the basic mechanisms of cell differentiation and cancer cell proliferation," 
he provides no examples of specific projects that have been influenced by or resulted from the 
petitioner's Ph.D. research. None of the petitioner's other references discuss the impact of this work 
with neuronal cells and the petitioner is now a cardiac researcher. 
, in whose laboratory the petitioner worked in Cologne, asserts that the 
petitioner was one of the few researchers experimenting with cardiomyocytes derived fi-om embryonic 
stem cells. During his time in Cologne, the petitioner "showed that cardiac muscle cells have an 
intracellular trigger mechanism at the very early developmental stage." 
speculates that this research "could" explain the initiation of spontaneous beating and cellular 
mechanisms responsible for arrhythmias. In addition, the petitioner studied the developmental build up 
and ex ression pattern of ion channels during the early stages of cardiomyogenesis. - 
dh explains that these studies can provide novel ideas about diseases because pathologically 
altered tissue "can recapitulate early embryonic features." 
 ther 
collaborator in Cologne, simply asserts that their joint work was "important and successful." While he 
characterizes the petitioner as a "well trained electrophysiologist" who has sufficient experience to lead 
a scientific group and asserts that the petitioner made "substantial contributions during his reports in the 
institute seminar and during our scientific discussions daily," - does not provide any 
examples of specific contributions or explain their impact in the field. 
asserts that the petitioner joined his laboratory in 1998 and has become "an essential 
member of our research team." The petitioner's work "reveals significant findings that have 
substantially improved our understanding [o fl t 
 d molecular mechanism of regulation of 
contractility in normal and diseased hearts." 
 Mher asserts that researchers with the 
petitioner's experience in electrophysiological 
a professor at Texas Tech University, asserts that 
 group is 
internationally recognized for their pioneering work defining calcium-signaling mechanisms 
responsible for connecting the electrical depolarization of heart cells with the contraction of the muscle 
wails. further asserts that the group use- techniques, many of which they 
developed, to rapidly advance this area of knowledge. howeve specifics 
regarding the petitioner's work individually other than that it is hnded. While sserts that 
the petitioner has assisted him with surgeries, he does not explain how the 
cardiac research beyond his immediate circle of colleagues. 
The issue is not whether there is a shortage of workers with the petitioner's slalls, an issue that falls under the 
jurisdiction of the Department of Labor, but whether the petitioner is acclaimed in hs field. See Matter of New 
York State Dep 't of Tvansp., 22 I&N Dec. 215,221 (Comm. 1998), 
LIN05 121 51264 
Page 7 
, a professor at Texas Tech University, provides more detail about the petitioner's 
work. Specifically, the petitioner "discovered what might be the ke reason for the diminished heart 
contractions of patients who have congestive heart failure." 
 concedes, however, that this 
work had yet to be published. More relevant to the petitioner's eligibility as of the date of filing, the 
petitioner "uncovered the probable cause of 'effort-induced ventricular arrhythmia and sudden death' in 
human patients." Specifically, the petitioner discovered that "genetic mutations in a calcium-binding 
equestrin could impair the protein's ability to buffer calcium within cellular storage 
notes the relevance of this work to children with a specific genetic mutation. 
Most of the remaining letters are fiom researchers who have worked with the petitioner or at the same 
institutions as he has at some point in time. They provide general praise with few specifics as to how 
the petitioner has already influenced the field. 
professor at Loyola University Chicago, appears to be inde endent of the 
petitioner but fails to explain how he learned of the petitioner and his work. 
 provides no 
specific examples of the petitioner's impact and does not claim to have been influenced by the 
petitioner. 
 Rather, assertsA generally that the petitioner's work provides a better 
understanding of how cells of the heart and the nervous system work and how they are regulated. 
of the University of Bern Medical School, a longtime fhend of = 
prow es somew at more notable information. asserts that he met the petitioner at a 
conference and asserts that the petitioner "genera e some o 
 e most stunning science of the last few 
years in our field. His seminal contributions to the understanding of cardiac calcium signaling and 
excitation-contraction coupling also had a m 
 n our projects and our scientific work 
here in Switzerland." The record reflects that 
 has authored an article citing two of the 
petitioner's articles. 
The petitioner's field, like most science, is research-driven, and there would be little point in 
publishing research that did not add to the general pool of knowledge in the field. According to the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 204,5(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. To be considered a contribution of major significance in the field of 
science, it can be expected that the results would have already been reproduced and confirmed by 
other experts and applied in their work. Otherwise, it is difficult to gauge the impact of the 
petitioner's work. As discussed above, the petitioner's letters are almost all from his immediate 
circle of colleagues and his independent references do not claim to be influenced by his work. 
The petitioner did submit copies of 16 published articles and a book chapter and evidence that his 
work has been moderately cited. While the petitioner's citation record is a positive factor, without 
more specific letters fiom independent experts explaining how the petitioner's work has impacted the 
LJNO5 121 51264 
Page 8 
field, we cannot conclude that the petitioner's contributions to the field rise to the level of "major 
significance." 
While the evidence demonstrates that the petitioner is a talented researcher with potential, it falls 
short of establishing that the petitioner had already made contributions of major signifcance. Thus, 
the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The director concluded that the petitioner meets this criterion and we concur with that determination. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The director did not address this criterion because the petitioner did not previously claim to meet it. 
Counsel raises the claim that the petitioner meets this criterion for the first time on appeal. Specifically, 
counsel asserts that the petitioner played a leading or critical role for The Ohio State University, Texas 
Tech University, the University of Cologne, the Bogomoletz Institute of Physiology and the Ukrainian 
National Academy of Science. 
We have already considered the petitioner's contributions while working at the above institutions. At 
issue for this criterion is the role the petitioner was hired to fill and the reputation of the entity that hired 
him. More specifically, the role itself should be so intrinsically leading or critical that the very selection 
for the role is indicative of or at least consistent with national or international acclaim. 
A review of the petitioner's reference letters suggest that he has held the position of postdoctoral 
to research assistant professor. 
Neither 
 rovides the petitioner's position title at the 
of Liverpool suggests the 
indicates that the petitioner was an 
engineer and a Ph.D. trainee at the Bogomoletz Institute of Physiology. The petitioner did not submit 
the organizational hierarchy for any of these institutions. While the above institutions may have 
distinguished reputations, we cannot conclude that every Ph.D. student, engineer, postdoctoral 
researcher, instructor, research scientist or even research assistant professor plays a leading or critical 
role at his institution beyond the institution's obvious need to employ competent individuals in those 
positions. Rather, it would appear that the organizational hierarchy at these institutions includes far 
more leading and critical roles, such as department heads, center directors and deans. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not demonstrated that he meets this criterion. 
LIN05 121 51264 
Page 9 
Finally, 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. The petitioner, a research scientist, relies on his research grants, publications, moderate 
citation record, two requests to review manuscripts from his own colleague and the praise of his 
immediate circle of colleagues. While this may distinguish him from other research scientists and 
research assistant rofessors, we will not narrow his field to others with his level of training and 
experience. 
 is the director of the Imaging Core Facilities at The Ohio State University. I 
served on review panels for the National Institutes of Health and the American Heart 
Association. Similarlv. Professor Fleishrnann has served on the board of several funding agencies in 
- - 
Germany and switzeriand. 
 is head of a department, co-editor of a journal and founding 
editor of another journal. Thus, it appears that the highest level of the petitioner's field is far above the 
level he has attained. 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage 
who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself as a 
researcher 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 indicates that the 
petitioner shows talent as a research associate, but is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements 
set him significantly above almost all others in his field. 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 burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.