dismissed EB-1A Case: Research Science

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privac} 
PUBLIC COPy 
FILE: 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. I)cpartml'nt of Homl'land Sccurit:y 
IJ.S. Citi/cnship amJ il1l111igratioll Sl:f\iu.:~ 
Office of Administrative Appeals (Ai\O) 
20 Massachusetts A\I.! .. N.\V .. MS 2090 
\\,'a~hitlgton. DC 2052Y-2090 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Officc: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Datc: JAN 2 1 2011 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section203(b)(I)(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 Omee in your case. All of Ihe 
documenls related to this matter have been returned to the office Ihal originally decided your case. Please 
be adviscd that any further inquiry that you might havc concerning your case musl be made 10 Ihal office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision. or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered. you may file a mol ion to reconsider or a molion to reopen. 
The specific requirements f"r filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All molions must be 
submilted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form 1·290B. Notice of Appeal or 
Motion. with a fee 01'$630. Please be aware that 8 CY.R. ~ 103.5(a)(I)(i) requires that any motion must 
be tiled within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
. I I (lflf}},:tlZ.... 
r Perry Rhew 
l' Chief. Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Tcxas 
Service Center, on July 30, 2009, and is now belare the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. 
The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(J)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.c. § I 153(b)(1)(A), as an 
alien of extraordinary ability as a research scientist. The director determined that the petitioner 
had not established the requisite extraordinary ability and failed to submit extensive 
documentation of her sustained national or international acclaim. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the 
statute that the petitioner demonstrate "sustained national or international acclaim" and present 
"extensive documentation" of his or her achievements. See section 203(b)(I)(A)(i) of the Act 
and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that an 
alien can establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a onc-time 
achievement, specifically a major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such 
an award, the regulation outlines ten categories of specific evidence. 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(iJ 
through (x). The petitioner must submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten 
regulatory categories of evidence to establish the basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, the petitioner claims to meet at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). 
L Law 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(I J Priority workers. -- Visas shall tirst be made available ... to qualified 
immigrants who are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (AJ 
through (e): 
(AJ 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 whosc achievements have bccn 
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 
Page 3 
(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 (USerS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization 
Service (INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for 
individuals seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 10 I sl Cong., 2d 
Sess. 59 (1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29,1991). The term "extraordinary ability" 
refers only to those individuals in that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the 
field of endeavor. [d. and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate his or her sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be 
established either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international 
recognized award) or through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the 
following ten categories of evidence. 
(i) Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor; 
(ii) Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, 
as judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or 
fields; 
(iii) Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is 
sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and 
any necessary translation; 
(iv) Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge 
of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which 
classification is sought; 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field; 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles m the field, m 
professional or major trade publications or other major media; 
(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at mtistic exhibitions or 
showcases; 
Page 4 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for 
organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation; 
(ix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field; or 
(x) Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a 
petition filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. March 4, 2010). 
Although the court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the 
AAO's evaluation of evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion. I With respect to the 
criteria at 8 c.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS may have 
raised legitimate concerns about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two 
criteria, those concerns should have been raised in a subsequent "final merits determination." Id. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the 
petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed 
to satisfy the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." Id. at 1122 
(citing to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). The court also explained the "final merits determination" as the 
corollary to this procedure: 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, USCIS determines whether the 
evidence demonstrates both a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one 
of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor," 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), and "that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of 
expertise." 8 c.F.R. § 2D4.5(h)(3). Only aliens whose achievements have garnered 
"sustained national or international acclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary 
ability" visa. 8 U.S.c. § I 153(b)(1)(A)(i). 
Id. at 1119 - 1120. 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then 
considered in the context of a final merits determination. In reviewing Service Center decisions, the 
AAO will apply the test set forth in Kazarian. As the AAO maintains de novo review, the AAO 
will conduct a new analysis if the director reached his or her conclusion by using a one-step analysis 
rather than the two-step analysis dictated by the Kazarian court. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. 
I Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel, substantive, or 
evidentiary requirements beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) 
and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Page 5 
United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), afj'd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003): 
see also Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting that the AAO conducts 
appellate review on a de novo basis). 
II. Analysis 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
This petition, filed on March 16, 2009, seeks to classify the petltloner as an alien with 
extraordinary ability as a research scientist. The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to 
the following criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 2 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards j(Jr excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner's curriculum vitae states that the petitioner received the following awards and 
honors: 
1. 
2. Postdoctoral 
its 27'h annual meeting, 
3. Third place winner of the 7th annual basic medical sciences graduate student research 
forum, 
4. Second i ............. a.nd molecular biology graduate 
student research forum, 
5. First place winner of the biology graduate 
student research forum, 
6. 
The director did not find the petitioner eligible for this criterion, and we note that the petitioner 
did not address or contest the decision of the director for this criterion on appeal. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3 lei) requires "[ d Jocumentation of the 
alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence 
in the field of endeavor." In this case, the petitioner failed to establish that her postdoctoral 
fellowship travel awards, graduate student research awards, and scholarship equate to lesser 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence. Furthermore, academic 
study is not a field of endeavor, but training for a future field of endeavor. As such, academic 
scholarships, postdoctoral fellowships, student awards, and financial aid awards cannot be 
2 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in 
this decision. 
~ 
Page 6 
considered nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards in the petitioner's field of 
endeavor. Finally, the petitioner did not submit evidence of her receipt of the awards listed in 
her curriculum vitae. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient 
for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 
158,165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft ofCalitcJrnia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. 
Comm.1972)). 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that she meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field /CJr which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their 
members. as judged by recognized national or international experts in their 
disciplines orfields. 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion. a petllioner 
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 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 record contains evidence that the petitioner 
and the 
The record contains a letter on'" letterhead dated 
secretary-treasurer stating: 
and signed by 
Pursuant to the_By-Laws, to be qualified for full membership, an individual 
should be at least three years past hislher professiona~ee (PhD., M.D., 
D.V.M., or equivalent). To be nominated for election t~, one must submit 
an application form, a curriculum vitae and bibliography, a letter of nomination 
from a current full member of _ and payment of the annual membership dues. 
[The petitioner 1 has met all these requirements. 
The record contains a letter on _letterhead dated 
_____ executive director stating: 
and signed by 
Regular membership is available to individuals who hold a doctorate, and have 
published at least one paper in a refereed journal devoted to biochemistry and 
molecular biology since the receipt of their doctorate. The applicant must also be 
Page 7 
sponsored by one regular member of the society. Applications for regular 
membership are reviewed by the executive officer and presented to the •••• 
council twice a year. 
We cannot conclude that obtaining a doctorate, three years of work experience after receiving a 
doctorate, a curriculum vitae and bibliography, and publishing "at least one paper" equates to 
outstanding achievements. In this instance, the submitted documentation does not establish that 
•• I1.r _ require outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in the petitioner's field or an allied one. 
In addition, although the petitioner lists additional memberships in scientific socletles and 
associations in her curriculum vitae, the record contains no evidence of the membership 
requi~ or rules of admission) for the 
the __ for the Advancement of :>~l~~~el •• ';;;;;;; 
I!!!II!I!!I!!I!!I!!I!!I!!I!!I!. the and the 
showing that they require outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by 
recognized national or international experts in the beneficiary's field or an allied one. Simply 
going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for the purpose of 
meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter ofSoffici, at 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing 
Matter ol Treasure Cralt of Cai!fornia, at 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). A petition must be filed 
with any initial evidence required by the regulation. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). The nonexistence 
or other unavailability of primary evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(2)(i). 
In his decision, the director determined that the petitioner failed to establish that she meets this 
criterion. The petitioner does not address the director's concerns on appeal. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence (!l the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, or business-related 
contributions of a major significance in the field. 
On appeal, counsel argues that the director failed to adequately review the content of the 
recommendation letters. The petitioner has submitted letters from various research scientists 
discussing the impact of her research. We cite representative examples below. 
[The petitioner] was a crucial member of team which made seminal discoveries 
regarding the human polymerase delta. This work resulted in the following 
achievements: 
Page 8 
1. Development of methods for the production of recombinant forms of DNA 
polymerase delta, which consists of four subunit proteins (1, 2), These studies 
represented a major advance in this area of research, as the ahility to produce the 
recombinant proteins made it possible for more detailed molecular studies, 
2, The characterization of the architectural role of the p12 subunit in the assembly 
of the DNA polymerase delta complex (3), This work showed that the p12 subunit 
plays a crucial role in the assembly of the DNA polymerase complex, and also that it 
is involved in the interaction of polymerase delta with a second replication protein, 
PCNA 
3. The relative contributions of DNA polymerases delta and epsilon in human DNA 
replication (4). [The petitionerj participated in an international collaborative study 
to determine the relative contributions of the two DNA polymerases, delta and 
epsilon, that are both required for DNA replication. This was a major work which 
was the first to define the contributions of the these two enzymes using a multi­
expelrirrlenltal attack, and involved collaborations with research groups at 
4. The discovery that p21 associates with DNA polymerase delta. In this study, 
p21, a tumor growth suppressor protein, was shown to interact with polymerasc 
delta (5). This discovery provided evidence for a potential mechanism for the 
operation of the p21 as a tumor suppressor gene. P2l functions as a negative growth 
regulator, and its interaction with DNA polymerase delta points to a mechanism 
whereby it could function to slow down DNA replication and thereby cell division. 
5. Studies of the role of protein phosphorylation in the regulation of DNA 
polymerase delta. In this study the phosphorylation and dephosphorylation of the 
p68 subunit was discovered (6). This discovery opens a new door to understanding 
how DNA replication can be controlled by cell signaling that acts via protein 
phosphorylation. 
As a member of her thesis committee I was able to discern that [the petitioner's] 
contributions to these studies were substantial, not just in experimental terms, but 
also because of her intellectual input into the studies, The research that she 
performed led to publication of several outstanding publications in the top 
biochemical journals, Her studies represent significant COlntr:ihutio 
project that was funded, and continues to be funded, by the 
In the first achievement noted in his letter, _states that "the ability to produce the 
recombinant proteins made it possible for more detailed molecular studies." Although_ 
states that more detailed studies are possible, he does not state that such studies have taken place or 
are in progress. In the second achievement,_ stated that the "work showed that the p12 
subunit plays a crucial role in the assembly of the DNA polymerase complex, and also that it is 
involved in the interaction of polymerase delta with a second replication protein, PCNA" ••••• 
describes this as "crucial" but does not explain why this is important or significant to the field. In 
Page 9 
the third achievement noted by_. he states that the petitioner participated in an international 
collaborative study that was "the first to define the contributions of [J two enzymes using a multi­
disciplinary" approach. Again. _does not explain how defining the contributions of the 
enzymes is important or significant to the field. It is not sufficient to note that the petitioner's 
finding or research was original, the plain language of the criterion requires that the contribution is 
of major significance in the petitioner's field. In the fourth and fifth achievements,_ states 
that a discovery "provided evidence for a potential mechanism for the operation of the p2l as tumor 
suppressor gene" and that it "opens a new door to understanding how DNA replication can be 
controlled by cell signaling that acts via protein phophorylation." As in the first achievement .••• 
• speaks about a possibility and does not provide concrete evidence that such achievements have 
present impact on the field. 
In 
During her stay in_lab, Ithe petitioner] made significant contributions to 
our understanding of the molecular details of cellular mechanisms that induce Status 
Epilepticus in the brain. [The petitioner] used rat models to study the activation of 
specific receptors in the brain and define the downstream cellular pathways which 
result in Hippocampal cell death, one of the main consequences of Epilepsy. The 
implications of her work are critical in drug development and management of 
Epileptic seizures. Her work is published in major international multidisciplinary 
journals devoted to fundamental research in the brain sciences. In addition to these 
publications, [the petitioner] was among a few privileged international experts in the 
field of childhood Epilepsy who contributed chapters in the textbook 
which summarized the state-of-the-art 
knowledge in the field. I was one of the three editors in chief for this book. 
Together with_lthe petitioner I co-authored a chapter in the book which 
recapitulated a comprehensive knowledge of the effect of focal lesions, Epilepsy and 
anti-epileptic drugs on memory functions. This book is considered as one of the 
most up to date references for experimental and cognitive neuropsychologists and 
medical specialists involved in the care of children with Epilepsy. 
IThe petitioner] discovered a previously unknown cellular pathway, the ceramide 
pathway, that is activated during epilepsy and is altered by various anti-epileptic 
drugs. Identifying such new pathways is at the very base of designing and 
improving the potency of antiepileptic drugs. In addition. [the petitioner's] studies 
of the cognitive effects of different anti-epileptic drug regiments are of crucial 
importance for improving the clinical management of childhood epilepsy. 
Althoug~tates that the implications of the petitioner's work are "critical in drug 
development and management of epileptic seizures" and that petitioner's work on "the cognitive 
effect of different anti-epileptic are of crucial importance for improving the clinical 
management of childhood epilepsy, not state that the work is currently being 
used for the actual development of drugs or the management of epileptic seizures. There is no 
evidence that the petitioner's work is actually applied in the field. 
. . 
- ----- ----- ------------------------------------
School states: 
In his 
The general goal of [the petitioner's] work has been the development of new anti­
viral drugs and vaccines against negative stranded RNA viruses ... 
* * * 
This undertaking is of exceptional challenge since this is an area where very little 
work has been done .... [the petitioner] has made critical contributions to our 
understanding of both cellular and viral polymerases. Her research will very likely 
continue to provide further insights that will assist in the development of new anti­
viral drugs and improve the prospects of conquering infectious viral disease and 
improving public health and the agricultural industry, not only in the United States 
but globally as well. 
states: 
[The petitioner's] research has become of pivotal importance to the design of a new 
generation of antiviral inhibitors directed against negative sense RNA viruses. The 
negative sense viruses include numerous medically important pathogens ( for 
example influenza, rabies, ebola) with considerable impact on human health. 
Through these landmark contributions, I and others in the RNA virology community 
have become familiar with [the petitioner'sl research. Her work has fundamental 
implications for understanding how the viral polymerases process messenger RNA, 
greatly enhancing our approaches [sic] for designing anti-viral drugs. 
* * * 
[The petitioner] discovered the region in the viral polymerase protein that has an 
essential role in the process of replication of this class of viruses. Identifying this 
region enable the design of anti-viral drugs that specifically and efficiently target the 
virus because the biochemical properties of this region are essentially distinct from 
those of the human enzymes that have a similar function. Before [the petitioner'sl 
discovery, this had been one of the fundamental questions that were unanswered in 
this field. 
Page 11 
Although _ finds the petitioner's work promising and states that the petitioner "has made 
critical contributions to our understanding of both cellular and viral and that that the 
petitioner's work will "enable the design of anti-viral drugs," . not state that her 
work has been used for the creation of anti-viral drugs. states that it "very likely" that 
the petitioner's research will "continue to provide further insights" but that her work is being 
researched further, 
I first met [the petitioner] in 2007 when she was making a breakthrough discovery in 
negative strand RNA virus biology by identifying which region of the viral 
polymerase is responsible for modifying viral mRNAs to allow them to be translated 
into proteins. [The petitioner's] discovery was a landmark in the field and has 
proven to be key to scientists' understanding of the virus polymerase complex. 
Furthermore, this was a very exciting discovery because [the petitioner's] research 
also showed that this part of the virus polymerase is unique and bears no similarity 
to human proteins, which means that it is an ideal target for intervention with 
antiviral drugs. Thus, this research has direct implications for human health. 
* * * 
The research that [the petitioner] has performed in the field of negative strand RNA 
viruses are particularly demanding and there are only a very small number of 
researchers worldwide (approximately 5 - 10) who are able to perform these types 
of studies. 
In her letter, _ states that the research that the petitioner has performed is "particularly 
demanding" ~re are only 5 to 10 researchers worldwide "who are able to perform these 
types of studies." Based upon statement, the fact that the petitioner can perform this 
study means that her work is original. However, this crfrion requires that original scientific 
contributions be of major significance in the field. Although states that the research "has 
direct implications for human health,"_does not state that the petitioner's research is 
being used in the field. The petitioner may have made an important discovery but_ fails 
to explain its current use or impact. 
l The petitioner] has discovered a crucial drug target by identifying amino acid 
residues in a conserved region of the polymerase (CRV) that are essential for mRNA 
modification by capping. Capping is of particular importance for RNA stability and 
consequent! y for viral replication. What makes l the petitioner's] discovery 
groundbreaking is the fact that the signature motif that she identified is distinct from 
Page 12 
that in the human capping enzyme which makes it ideal for specifically targeting 
viral replication while avoiding negative effects on human cells. These 
breakthrough findings are published in two articles in the of 
the foremost journals in the field. 
states: 
[T]he fact that [the petitioner's] published works have appeared in leading journals 
in varying areas of biomedical research including neuroscience, caner biology, 
immunology and virology is what makes her extraordinary and sets her apart from 
her peers. [The petitioner's] distinguishing ability to transcend specialties puts her 
in a unique position as an unrivalled biochemist and microbiologist. Such a 
distinction is held by very few in our field and is testament to her extraordinary 
ability. 
* * * 
[The petitioner] has already gained an international reputation in this field through 
her breakthrough discoveries of the role of distinct regions of the viral polymerase in 
the modification of the viral RNA which is necessary for the stability of the virus 
genetic material. [The petitioner] has demonstrated important differences in the 
biochemical details and regulation of these functions of the viral polymerase as 
compared to the human enzymes. The discovery of these differences by [the 
petitionerl opened the door to an entirely new approach in drug design strategies to 
inhibit the viral polymerase. The virology community awaits with much 
anticipation such big leaps in the field. These achievements would not have been 
possible without [the petitioner'sl vast multidisciplinary background in biomedical 
research and her mastery of cutting-edge technologies which only extraordinarily[­
]gil1ed and hard working[-]seientists are able to master. 
In their letters, state that the petitioner has "'discovered a crucial drug 
target" and "an design," however, there is no evidence in the record 
of proceeding that the petitioner's discovery has been or is being implcmented. As stated 
previously, there is no evidence that her work has been used for the creation of anti-viral drugs. 
I first became familiar with [the petitioner's] work upon reading her article entitled 
"'Regulation of cytokine and cytokine receptor expression by glucoeorticoids." This 
paper was published in the and has to date 
been cited 146 times. This IS ar my work given my 
active involvement in the pioneering field of composite tissue allotransplantation, of 
which hand transplants are a subset.. ... [The petitioner's] paper on the mechanism 
Page 13 
of action of glucocorticoids has, as evidenced by its extensive citations, served as a 
basis for researchers and clinician such as myself to understand how the immune 
system may at crucial junctures be suppressed ... We have in fact implemented this 
steroid-sparing protocol in our current hand transplant program, a measure which 
has profound effects on the quality of life of our patients. 
relevance to [hcr] work" 
plernerlted this 
steroid-sparing protocol in [its] current hand transplant program." Although has 
indicated that this single program is aware of and uses the petitioner's research, the record docs 
not establish that this research is widely used or considered of major significance. As discussed 
further below, this article was written in ~hile the petitioner was in graduate school. The 
AAO notes that according to the petitioner's curriculum vitae, since performing this research the 
petitioner's research has focused on other things. The ; ;7 states that the petitioner will 
perform "biomedical research involving biochemical and genetic characterization of viral proteins 
in order to design anti-viral therapies that specifically target viral replication;" The petitioner has 
not established that the research on the regulation of cytokine and cytokine receptor expression by 
glucocorticoids published in _ is relevant to the research that she is currently doing on viral 
proteins or otherwise establish the present impact of any of her work on the field; 
According to the regulation at 8 CFX. § 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 she was assigned at •••• 
_ and that she is a talented researcher with potential, the submitted documentation 
does not establish that she has already made original scientific contributions of major 
significance in her lield. For example, the petitioner's evidence does not establish her lield has 
significantly changed as a result of her work. 
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 (CommL 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 petitione(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. Without evidence showing that the petitioner's work has 
been unusually influential in her field, or has otherwise risen to the level of original contributions 
of major signilicance. we cannot conclude that she meets this criterion. 
-Page 14 
Further, a review of the petitioner's citation history supports our finding that the petitioner's 
work has yet to have a significant impact on her field. The record of proceeding ret1ects that the 
petitioner's _ article entitled 
~ was cited 156 times by others; however her other seven 
cited 10 or less times by others at the time of the filing of the petition. 
While the number of total citations is a factor, it is not the only factor to be considered in 
determining the petitioner's eligibility for this criterion. Generally, the number of citations is 
reflective of the petitioner's original findings and that the field has taken some interest to the 
petitioner's work. However, it is not an automatic indicator that the petitioner's work has been 
of'major significance in the field. Although the petitioner's work has been minim~ited, more 
than 200 times as whole, 156 of those citations are for one paper, published in _ when the 
petitioner was a graduate student. Since that time, the petitioner's most recent publications have 
been cited between I to 10 times each and fail to reflect that the petitioner's work has been 
unusually int1uential. In this case, we are not persuaded that the total number of citations IS 
ret1ective that the petitioner's work has been of major significance to the field. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship (!f'scholarly articles in the field. in prqf'essiol1al 
or major trade publications or other major media. 
The director concluded that the petitioner's submission of 13 co-authored scholarly articles and I 
book chapter failed to establish eligibility under this criterion because "publication of one's 
findings is inherent to all researchers." However, as the petitioner established that she has 
authored scholarly articles, we find that she meets the plain language of the regulation at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). Therefore, we withdraw the findings of the director for this criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of'the display of'the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 
Although the petitioner has presented her work at scientific conferences, the petitioner's field, 
however, is not in the arts. The plain language of this regulatory criterion indicates that it is 
intended for the arts (such as sculptors and painters) rather than for biomedical researchers such 
as the petitioner. The ten criteria in the regulations are designed to cover different areas; not 
every criterion will apply to every occupation. The petitioner's conference presentations are 
more relevant to the "authorship of scholarly articles" criterion at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), a 
criterion that has already been addressed. In his decision, the director determined that the 
petitioner failed to establish that she meets this criterion. The petitioner does not address this 
criterion on appeal. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that she meets this criterion. 
Page 15 
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. 
On appeal, counsel states: 
In his decision, the director stated that "the petitioner's teaching assistantship and 
research and I sic 1_ do not meet this criterion. As an initial matter, the 
petitioner concedes that a teaching assistantship does not meet this criterion. 
Nevertheless, the director ~ to have completely failed to consider the 
importance of her role at _ and has completely ignored the evidence 
regarding the petitioner's work at •••••• 
In his brief on appeal, counsel discusses two letters submitted in response to the director's request 
for evidence_ We discuss those letters below. 
IThe petitioner] plays a critical leadership role in my group at 
School. She is the senior postdoctoral fellow in my laboratory and is the lead 
scientist in three major research projects whose overarching objective is to 
understand the polymerases of negative sense RNA viruses. IThe petitioner's I 
experiments have already uncovered one novel target for anti-viral drug therapy in 
this important class of medically relevant pathogens. Her leadership skills are 
_ ied by her initiation of a series of collaborations laboratories at 
as well as with the 
channeling the effort of some of the most distinguished investigators at •••• t­
towards resolving the structure of a polymerase of a negative sense RNA viruses 
and designing a new generation of anti-viral drugs against this class of viruses. 
[The petitioner] also plays a vital role in mentoring and training doctoral 
candidates in my laboratory. This high profile leadership role makes [the 
petitioner] exceptional among her peers. [The petitioner's] expertise and 
achievement make her one of the few scientists who have risen to the very top of 
the fields of biochemistry and microbiology. 
Page 16 
[The petitioner] has been playing the leading and critical role in the collaborative 
between and the department of 
School. [The petitioner] spearheaded the expansion 
into larger -]scale expression and 
stat-olr -the·-art techniques. 
* * * 
[The petitioner] took on the challenging task of planning and designing the 
experimental protocols for cell culture and polymerase expression and purification 
based on her previous accomplishments, as well as training personnel in these 
techniques. [The petitioner's] strategies were remarkably successful resulting in 
the production of large amounts of polymerase proteins of vesicular stomatitis 
virus, lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus and Ebola virus. These viruses feature 
prominently on the list of 
select agents and toxins. 
polymerases an m the design of effective anti-viral 
therapies and vaccines. [The petitioner's] outstanding success was a crucial factor 
in the lUIIUl1l!O to 
support on 
This production system that was to [the petitioner's] rare 
expertise, is currently offered by for the common use of other pioneering 
investigators at who are engaged in research on anti-viral drug therapies. 
The successful collaboration of with [the petitioneri has ensured 
_ success in fostering cutting edge research by several leading 
laboratories at ••••••••••• 
The petitioner submitted letters of recommendation discussing her work at the ..... and the 
department of microbiology and molecular genetics at School. The record also 
contains a printout from the about the _ The 
AAO notes that the I . nerce.med.harvard.edu/about.html indicating that the 
•~~=~is~a part of the This indicates that the collaboration between 
the and the department microbiology and molecular genetics at the 
School involved a two groups that were already a part of theiiiiiiiiil. 
_ School. In her letter, does not discuss petitioner's role in creating such a 
collaboration was leading or School. 
While the petitioner has performed admirably on the research projects to which she was 
assigned, there is no evidence showing that her temporary role as a postdoctoral fellow was 
leading or critical for the preceding institutions. We note that the petitioner's postdoctoral 
position was designed to provide specialized research experience and training in her field of 
Page 17 
endeavor. 1 For example, there is no organization chart or other evidence documenting how the 
petitioner's position fell within the general hierarchy of her research institutions. Further, the 
record does not provide evidence demonstrating how the petitioner's subordinate position is more 
critical than that 0 There is no indication that the petitioner has been 
responsible for a laboratory such as or served as a principal investigator and 
initiated her own research projects, such as _ As such, the documentation submitted by 
the petitioner does not establish that she was responsible for the preceding institutions' success or 
standing to a degree consistent with the meaning of "leading or critical role." 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that she meets this criterion. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
In accordance with the Kazarian opinion, we must next conduct a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (I) 
a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen 
to the very top of thelirJ field of endeavor," 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2); and (2) "that the alien has 
sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been 
recognized in the field of expertise." See section 203(b)(l )(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.c. 
§ 1153(b)(I )(A)( i), and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). See also Kazarian, 20 I 0 596 F.3d 1115 at 1119 -
1120. The petitioner established eligibility for one of the criteria, of which three are required 
under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). In this case, many of the deficiencies in the 
documentation submitted by the petitioner have already been addressed in our preceding 
discussion of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
As discussed, the plain language of this regulatory criterion specifically requires that the 
petitioner's award be nationally or internationally recognized in the field of endeavor, and it is 
her burden to establish every element of this criterion. In this case, there is no evidence 
demonstrating that the petitioner's awards are tantamount to nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in her field of endeavor. 
We note that authoring scholarly articles is inherent to scientific research. For this reason, 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 her work and are familiar with it. On the other hand, few or no citations of an 
article authored by the petitioner may indicate that her work has gone largely unnoticed by her 
field. As previousl y discussed, the petitioner submitted evidence showing that one of her articles 
has been cited 156 times, however, the remaining publications have been cited, at most, 10 times. 
1 "Biological scientists with a Ph.D. often take temporary postdoctoral research positions that 
provide specialized research expenence. See http://data.bls.gov/cgi­
bin/prinLPl/oco/ocos047.htm, accessed on October 19, 2010, copy incorporated into the record 
of proceeding. 
Page 18 
The AAO notes that the article cited 156 times was published in ~hile she was a graduate 
student, over a decade prior to filing. The citations for the petitioner's most recent articles 
demonstrate a small degree of interest in her work and they are not sufficient to demonstrate that 
her articles have attracted a level of interest in her field consistent with national or international 
acclaim. 
We cannot ignore that the statute requires the petitioner to submit "extensive documentation" of 
her sustained national or international acclaim. See section 203(b)( I )(A) of the Act. The 
commentary for the proposed regulations implementing section 203(b)(1 )(A)(i) of the Act provide 
that the "intent of Congress that a very high standard be set for aliens of extraordinary ability is 
reflected in this regulation by requiring the petitioner to present more extensive documentation than 
that required" for lesser classifications. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30704 (July 5,1991). At the time of 
the original filing of the petition, the petitioner submitted documentation regarding the citations of 
her work by others. Although the petitioner has documented citations to her published work, 
which is retlective of the fact that the field has taken some notice of the petitioner's findings, we 
are not persuaded that the petitioner's articles, which, other than the 1996 article, have been cited 
10 times or less, demonstrate national or international recognition by her peers and sustained 
national or international acclaim for this highly restrictive c1assilication. The petitioner failed to 
submit evidence demonstrating that she "is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very 
top of the field." In addition, the petitioner has not demonstrated her "career of acclaimed work in 
the lield" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723.59 (Sept. 19, 1990). 
Moreover, while the petitioner demonstrated that she meets the plain language of the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), the record retlects that the petitioner submitted evidence of having 
authored 13 scholarly articles and I book chapter. However, when compared to the authorship 
of those in hcr field, the record reflects that _ has "over 100 publications in first ratc pccr[-
]reviewed journals," has published more "over 100 research articles in top 
neuropsychology journals, and has published "29 papers." 
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. While the record retlects that the petitioner possesses talent as a research scientist. the 
record falls far short in classifying the petitioner as an alien or extraordinary ability pursuant to the 
requirements of the statute and regulations. 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. 
III. Conclusion 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished herself to such an 
extent that she may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim and to be 
within the small percentage at the very top of her field. The evidence is not persuasive that the