dismissed EB-1A Case: Research Scientist

1 
identify* drrs deleted to 
pevent clwly unwasnuued 
invasion of pmonal privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Ofice of Administrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: AUG 0 5 2010 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(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 be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that 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 motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. The 
specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. 4 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee of $585. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. 8 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
t 
Thank you, 
* 
2 Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 

Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas 
Service Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal 
will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "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. 9 1 153(b)(l)(A). The 
director determined that the petitioner had not established the requisite extraordinary ability through 
extensive documentation and 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 the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim and present 
"extensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act and 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. 4 204.5(h)(3) states that an alien can 
establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement of a 
major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines 
ten categories of specific objective evidence. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(i) 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, counsel argues that the petitioner meets at least three of the ten regulatory categories of 
evidence at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). For the reasons discussed below, we uphold the director's 
decision. 
I. Law 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are 
aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, 
business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or 
international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the 
field through extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 

Page 3 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service 
(INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals 
seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 10ISt 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. 
Id. and 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3) requires that an alien demonstrate his or her sustained acclaim 
and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim and achievements must be 
established either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized 
award) or through meeting 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 in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media; 
(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases; 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has perfonned in a leading or critical role for organizations 
or establishments that have a distinguished reputation; 
(ix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a hgh 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. 

Page 4 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a petition 
filed under this classification, See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 11 15 (9" Cir. 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.' With respect to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(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 (whch 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. 5 204.5(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. 5 204.5(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. 5 204.5(h)(3). Only aliens whose achievements have garnered "sustained 
national or international acclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary ability" visa. 
8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(l)(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 Enter rises, Inc. v. United States, 229 ,R F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), afd, 345 F.3d 683 (9 Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. 
DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting that the AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo 
basis). 
11. Analysis 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
--- 
' 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. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 

Page 5 
This petition, filed on October 6, 2008, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary 
abilitv as a research scientist. At the time of filing. the ~etitioner was working as a ~ostdoctoral 
- in the 
 and in the 
The petitioner has submitted 
evidence pertaining to the following criteria under 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)." 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
years old. . . . There were only two research teams were granted this award in all the range of 
submitted evidence does not indicate how many individuals were on the petitioner's research team 
and were similarly recognized and whether the petitioner played an integral role in the project.3 
Nevertheless, the petitioner's second class award from the Committee of Science and Technology 
Development of 
d 
equates to regional recognition rather than a nationally or 
internationally recognize pnze or award for excellence in the field of endeavor. The petitioner's 
response also included information about the 
 o f 
China, but there is 
Technology Award of 
of China are one and the same. Moreover, the statute requires the submission of extensive evidence. 
Section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A)(i). Consistent with that statutory 
requirement, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(i) requires the submission of 
evidence of more than one nationally or internationally recognized prize or award. Accordingly, the 
petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classzfication 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 petitioner must 
show that the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for admission to 
The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
It cannot suffice that the petitioner played an insignificant role in a large research group that earned collective 
recognition. 

Page 6 
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. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner asserts that he is a member of the 
American Society of Human Genetics, the American Association for Cancer Research, the 
Epigenetics Society, and the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. The 
petitioner, however, did not submit evidence of his membership in the preceding associations. 
Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting 
the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sofici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) 
(citing Matter of Treasure CraJ of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). A petition 
must be filed with any initial evidence required by the regulation. 8 C.F.R. Ej 103.2(b)(l). 
Moreover, there is no evidence of the membership requirements (such as bylaws or rules of 
admission) for the preceding associations showing that they require outstanding achievements of 
their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in the petitioner's field or 
an allied one. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in thejeld for which classz~cation is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary 
translation. 
In general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the petitioner 
and, as stated in the regulations, be printed in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media. To qualify as major media, the publication should have significant national or international 
distribution. An alien would not earn acclaim at the national level from a local publication. Some 
newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally serve a particular locality but would qualify as 
major media because of significant national distribution, unlike small local community papers.4 
In resDonse to the director's reauest for evidence. the petitioner submitted an April 8, 2007 article he 
him. The regulations contain a separate criterion regarding the authorshp of scholarly articles. 
8 C.F.R. $2045(h)(3)(vi). The petitioner also submitted 
that he claims to have edited entitled 
and a book that he claims to 
4 Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. For example, 
an article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax County, Virginia, for 
instance, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 

were unaccompanied by certified English language translations. 
 Pursuant to the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. 9 103.2(b)(3), any document containing foreign language submitted to USCIS shall be 
accompanied by a full English language translation that the translator has certified as complete and 
accurate, and by the translator's certification that he or she is competent to translate from the foreign 
language into English. Nevertheless, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
requires "[plublished material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media" including "the title, date, and author of the material." None of the documentation submitted for 
this regulatory criterion meets these requirements. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the 
work of others in the same or an alliedJield of speclJication for which classlJication is 
sought. 
The ~etitioner submitted incom~lete. non-certified English language translations of two "gant review" 
- - - 
e-mail notices from the 
 dated ~ebru&5, 2008 and 
May 4,2008. The e-mail greetings reference the etitioner's name, but the messages were actually sent 
to 
 the e-mail address for 
 listed at the conclusion of his June 6,2008 
letter. We acknowledge that the petitioner Agricultural University 
from August 2006 to September 2007 and that himself as the 
petitioner's "former advisor and colleague." However, the petitioner has been worlung at the = 
University School of Medicine since September 2007 and the e-mail address listed on his resume is 
Therefore, it is unclear as to why grant review assignments intended for 
the petitioner would have been sent toin 2008. It is incumbent upon the petitioner 
to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent objective evidence. Any attempt to 
explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner submits competent 
obiective evidence ~ointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 
- 
1688). 
 Further, there is no evidence from the of china 
establishing that the petitioner actually completed the grant reviews. The February 25, 2008 e-mail 
states: "We will send you the grants for review in April of 2008." The May 4, 2008 e-mail states: 
"It is our honor to ask you to evaluate 11 grant applications . . . ." The preceding "Notice[s] of grant 
review" equate to requests for review rather than evidence of the petitioner's actual "participation" as a 
reviewer. Finally, the English language translations accompanying the preceding e-mail notices were 
not certified by the translator as complete and accurate as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
103.2(b)(3). 
The etitioner submitted an August 15, 2008 letter from the fi p stating: "This letter is written to confirm the status of journal reviewer of [the 
petitioner] for the journal of [The petitioner] has 
reviewed many papers for our journal in the field of veterinary epidemiology, molecular genetics and 
veterinary medicine . . . ." The petitioner also submitted an August 25, 2008 letter from them 
stating: "This letter is written to certify that 

Page 8 
[the petitioner] has been a reviewer for the 
 [The 
petitioner] has reviewed many articles related on veterinary epidemiology, molecular genetics and 
. - 
veterinary medicine for our journal . . . ." The vague information provided 
 the preceding letters does 
not specifically identify the articles and papers reviewed by the petitioner, their dates of submission, and 
their authors. Further, the letters do not specify the name of the petitioner's activities as a reviewer. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that his review activities for these journals equates to his 
"participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others." Additional 
deficiencies pertaining to the petitioner's evidence will be addressed below in our final merits 
determination regarding whether the submitted evidence is commensurate with sustained national or 
international acclaim, or being among that small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientzfic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major signzficance in the field. 
The petitioner submitted several letters of support discussing his work. 
[The petitioner] has been a Research Associate in my laboratory in the - 
University School of Medicine 
since the middle of September, 2007. [The petitioner] is a lead researcher studying the 
epigenetics of FSH Muscular Dystrophy (facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy). 
Although [the petitioner] has been working in my lab less than a year, we are writing a 
manuscript about some of his exciting findings describing unusual DNA structures and 
human disease. The manuscript is about a very unusual shape of DNA (guanine 
quadruplexes) in the region on chromosome 4 linked to FSH muscular dystrophy. 
Moreover, [the petitioner] has made an important new discovery that will go to a second 
manuscript shortly. He found to our surprise when replicating DNA containing guanine 
quadruplexes, very unusual DNA structures, that the structure got precisely excised from the 
rest of the DNA sequence by naturally occurring enzymes. We will shortly be writing 
another manuscript on these findings and they will be presented at an upcoming international 
meeting on FSH muscular dystrophy. 
opines that the petitioner has made exciting and important findings while working in her 
laboratory, but there is no evidence showing that these findings which they expect to publish at some 
unspecified future date equate to original scientific contributions of major significance in the field. 

Page 9 
A petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. 55 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of 
Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 (Regl. Cornmr. 197 1). 
Although I have never worked with [the petitioner], I know that he is a research associate in 
University School of 
is one of a small number of experts on research into the molecular 
genetic mechanism of facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy (FSH muscular dystrophy). 
[The petitioner] is a lead researcher inprogram on "Epigenetic Approaches for 
FSH Muscular Dystrophy," which involves very complicated analysis of unusual structures 
in a DNA region linked to FSH muscular dystrophy. I met him and discussed his research 
- - - 
with him at an international meeting of the 
 -. 
New Orleans, April 27, 2008. At this meeting, [the petitioner] first reported his 
exciting findings describing the relationship to human disease of a very unusual DNA 
structure (guanine quadruplexes) in the region on chromosome 4 linked to FSH muscular 
dystrophy. [The petitioner's] research is at the cutting-edge of molecular genetics research 
for understanding human genes and diseases and has possible applications in cancer 
treatment. The approach of group is very novel and exciting and [the 
petitioner's] experience and technical skills contribute enormously to its development. 
Moreover, [the petitioner] has subsequently made another important new discovery. He 
found that, surprisingly, during replication of DNA containing this very unusual structure 
that it is excised from the rest of the DNA sequence by naturally occurring enzymes. 
fi Professor of 
- University Medical School, states: 
[The petitioner] has exciting findings about the relationship between human DNA structures 
and inherited disease. Using methods like circular dichroism (CD), polyacrylamide gel 
electrophoresis (PAGE), and in vitro DNA recombination, he found there are very unusual 
non-B structures of DNA, called guanine quadruplexes, in the DNA repeat region (D4Z4) 
linked to this disease. He found to our surprise when replicating with DNA containing this 
very unusual structure that the structure got excised from the rest of the DNA sequence by 
naturally occurring enzymes. It is attractive to propose that G-quadruplexes help organize 
D4Z4 chromatin structure as part of special changes in D4Z4's conformation accounting for 
the near-threshold effect of D4Z4 size on FSHD status. 
The record, however, does not include evidence showing that the petitioner's facioscapulohumeral 
muscular dystrophy research is widely cited by independent researchers or otherwise equates to an 
original contribution of major significance in the field. 

Page 10 
[The etitioner worked as ostdoctoral researcher in my laboratories at University of- 
and I) University fiom 2002 to 2006. I was his postdoctoral mentor 
and worked closely with him on several projects . . . . 
[The petitioner] . . . initiated several research projects to investigate the recovery mechanism 
of phototransduction, which is a canonical heterotrimeric G-protein signaling pathway found 
in retinal photoreceptors. In one project [the petitioner] used various ectopic expression 
systems to compare and contrast the in vitro activities of GRKI and GRK7, the two G-protein 
coupled receptor kinases found in human photoreceptors. He then employed transgenesis and 
gene targeting techniques to express human GRK7 in mouse photoreceptors lacking 
endogenous GRKI, and demonstrated that GRK7 is a superior enzyme to GRKl in vivo. . . . 
[The petitioner] found that with a better kinase in the system, the overall rate of 
phototransduction recovery remains unaltered, suggesting that accelerated rhodopsin 
phosphorylation has no impact on recovery kinetics. This led to his second project, which 
was to unequivocally identify the rate-limiting step of photoreceptor recovery, a puzzle that 
stayed unsolved for decades in the field. Using transgenesis again he discovered that a 
separate reaction which involves the hydrolysis of GTP by transducin rate-limits the recovery 
process. This finding drew a lot of attention after its publication in NEURON in 2006 
because it implies that controlling the timing and duration of G-protein signaling by RGS 
(Regulators of Gprotein Signaling) may be central to the control of various integrating neural 
circuits in the central nervous system. It was a breakthrough and leading progress of the field 
in the world. . . . [The petitioner's] contribution went beyond this, he was also responsible 
for our success in producing a transgenic mouse line called iCre75, which enables us to use 
the CreJLox system to inactivate genes in a photoreceptor-specific manner. Furthermore, he 
demonstrated that when the expression of Cre recombinase in photoreceptors went too high, 
photoreceptor degeneration ensued. To circumvent this problem he engineered a self-excised 
transgenic construct and made a mouse line called SEiCre. We are currently using the SEiCre 
mouse line he generated to advance our attack on the degenerative mechanism of retinal 
photoreceptors, a leading cause of human blindness in our country. 
While the petitioner's research is no doubt of value, it can be argued that any research must be 
shown to be original and present some benefit if it is to receive funding and attention fiom the 
scientific community. Any Ph.D. thesis or postdoctoral research, in order to be accepted for 
graduation, publication, presentation, or funding, must offer new and useful information to the pool 
of knowledge. It does not follow that every researcher who performs original research that adds to 
the general pool of knowledge has inherently made a contribution of major significance to the field 
as a whole. 

Page 11 
[The petitioner] pioneered a conditional gene targeting technique that established a unique 
transgenic mouse line, iCre75, which only express Cre recombinase in retinal rod 
photoreceptors. This mouse model can modulate any retinal rod photoreceptor gene, and is 
vital for future genetic studies of essential genes in retinal photoreceptor. The strategy and 
method he used is both original and groundbreaking, and can be applied to any conditional 
gene targeting system. In particular, this gene targeting system is useful in deciphering the 
role of genes that cause severe blinding diseases in this country. 
[The petitioner] has also published another extraordinary work in one of the most prestigious 
journals, Neuron. . . . Using transgenic and knockout mice model he created, his team 
deciphered the mechanism behind light signaling in mammalian rod cells, which is a model 
system for studying GPCR signaling. This study resolved a long-standing controversy in the 
field of neuroscience. This significance of this finding is evidenced by the fact that this result 
has been cited 33 times in just two years after it was published. 
The record. however. does not include evidence indentifking: the 33 cites to this article authored by - - 
and eight others. As previously discussed, going on record 
evidence is not sufficient for purposes of 
proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. We agree with 
that cites to a journal article are a reliable measure of the level of significance attributable to a 
researcher's findings. For example, a large number of independent cites to an article authored by the 
petitioner would provide solid evidence that other researchers have been influenced by his work and 
are familiar with it. In this case, the petitioner claims that his body of work has been cited to 434 
times. The petitioner submitted a "citation table" summarizing the number of cites to hls English and 
Chinese research papers. For instance, according to the citation table, the petitioner's article in = 
was cited to 33 times. The source of this information compiled by the petitioner is not identified and 
copies of the citing articles were not submitted or specifically identified with an accompanying 
index. The petitioner also submitted search results from Google.com, but again, copies of the citing 
articles were not submitted or specifically identified with an accompanying index. Rather, the 
petitioner simply searched for his own name at Google.com and for the term "retina," and submitted 
the results. The Google.com results pulled up articles coauthored by the petitioner but the links below 
the individual articles, which will list the number of citations when there are any, do not identify the 
citing articles. While the search results may include several hits for the petitioner's name and the term 
"retina," without submitting a list of all of the results, we cannot conclude that any of them represent 
citations of the ~etitioner's articles. Finally, even if the ~etitioner were to submit evidence of the 33 
articles citing td his work in we &mot conclude that this moderate number of citations is 
sufficient to demonstrate that this work under the guidance equates to a 
contribution of "major significance" in the field. 

[The petitioner] was a Ph.D. graduate student in my laboratory in School of- 
University in China from 1997 to 2000. He joined my 
laboratory as a faculty member after he got his doctoral degree. . . . Obviously, I know him 
quite well and have been fortunate to keep in touch with him personally and scientifically. 
When [the petitioner] joined my laboratory, we were focused on the molecular genetic of 
avian infectious bronchitis virus (IBV). . . . The molecular characteristics of large RNA 
genomic size . . . made IBV one of the most difficult virus for gene clone and sequencing 
with the whole virus RNA genome as template. By numerous trials and fails, finally, [the 
petitioner] solved these problems successfully. Indeed, he was the first one in the country 
who made the breakthrough on IBV cloning and sequencing. Meanwhile, he isolated more 
than 60 IBV wild twe virus strains from 22 provinces of the country. Parts of his IBV 
As the first author, or co-author, or correspondence author, he has published more th[a]n 60 
peer reviewed academic Chinese articles. One of his first author DaDer, which about the 
Aolecular epidemiology of IBV, was published in June of 2003, in tie- 
right before SARS [Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome] national breakout. Because SARS 
pathogen and IBV belong to the same virus family (Coronavirus) and share many common 
characteristics his paper was one of the few papers can be referred in the research of SARS 
epidemiology, especially on mechanism of molecular genetics of virus gene variation at that 
critic[al] moment. 
Over past decade, many mouse models were generated to mimic inherited human retinal 
degeneration. [The petitioner] is the first one developed a conditional gene targeting system, 
iCre-75, in which a mouse rod opsin promoter drives the expression of Cre recombinase in 
photoreceptor specifically. Continuously, he made a series of transgenic and gene knockout 
mouse systems, including GRK1, R9AP, GTa, GTaQ200L and G38D. These animal models 
were the basis of the papers he published and have great impact on photo signal transduction 
field. Otherwise, some critical mechanisms would be very difficulty to elucidate. 
The record, however, does not include evidence showing that the petitioner's IBV cloning and 
sequencing work is frequently cited, that his iCre-75 gene targeting system is widely utilized in other 
laboratories, or that his work otherwise equates to original contributions of major significance in the 
field. 

I have known [the petitioner] since 2002 when he worked at the University of 
 as 
research associate in the laboratory of. . . The history of gene 
targeting is less than 20 years old, but has developed into an invaluable new tool to dissect 
the gene function in vivo. This technique was awarded the Nobel Prize for medicine at- 
to There are more than 500 human disorders 
can be modeled by laboratory mice since gene targeting was invented. lab 
is very famous on the animal models for elucidating mechanisms of phototransduction and its 
regulation. 
[The petitioner], while in 
 lab at the University of uncovered the 
relationship between Cre recombinase expression levels and retina degeneration, a very 
important discovery and critical for establishing conditional knock-out mice in retina. [The 
petitioner] was a driving force in developing an Opsin-iCre transgenic mouse line, termed 
iCre-75, in which a photoreceptor-specific promoter drives the expression of bacteriophage 
P1 Cre recombinase in retinal rod photoreceptors, an important and pioneering work in the 
field. . . . This original and ground br[e]aking work was a great advance for gene targeting 
systems. Generally, the establishment of a new animal model needs three to five years, but by 
[the petitioner's] methods, it takes just a few months, another great advance. 
After moving to - University, [the petitioner] continued his work on 
gene targeting systems, and within one year, he ublished three papers in the most 
prestigious peer reviewed journals in our field. In one of the primary research 
journals of Cell Press, using a series of transgenic and knockout mice models, [the petitioner] 
and his collaborators for first time confirmed the critical factors governing the overall 
recovery rate of the light response after phototransduction took place in rod photoreceptors. 
A number of the petitioner's references such as 
discuss the petitioner's publication record. The regulations contain a separate criterion regarding the 
authorshp of scholarly articles. 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3)(vi). We will not presume that evidence relating 
to or even meeting the scholarly articles criterion is presumptive evidence that the petitioner also meets 
this criterion. Here it should be emphasized that the regulatory criteria are separate and distinct from 
one another. Because separate criteria exist for authorship of scholarly articles and original 
contributions of major significance, USCIS clearly does not view the two as being interchangeable. 
To hold otherwise would render meaningless the statutory requirement for extensive evidence or the 
regulatory requirement that a petitioner meet at least three separate criteria. We will fully address the 
petitioner's scholarly articles under the next criterion. 

Page 14 
[The petitioner] is the first scientist in China who systematically analyzed the evolutionary 
features of IBV based on gene sequence variation. His work is both original and 
groundbreaking. He isolated many IBV strains which covered the most provinces of China. 
By the single tube reverse transcript polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) method designed 
by himself, he cloned and sequenced IBV S1 gene - the most variable and virulent IBV gene, 
from manv different IBV isolates. The gene seauence data was deposited into the U.S. 
strains variation and their correlation with spatial and temporal distribution and pathogen 
adaptation. The significance of this work was twofold. First, it was the first report of this 
important work in China. Second, the methods and data obtained from this work also proved 
to be of benefit to studies on other members of the coronavirus family. In addition, [the 
petitioner] and his colleagues, first in the world, cloned and sequenced all the structure genes 
of one specific IBV variation strain, QXIBV, which caused severe pathological changes in 
avian proventriculus and was prevalent in most parts of China. 
In addition to IBV, his research works contributed to the better understanding of several 
other viral pathogens, including Marek's disease virus (MDV), avian influenza virus (AIV), 
Japanese encephalitis virus (JEV), porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus 
(PRRSV), and porcine circovirus (PCV). 
According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not only 
original but of major significance. We must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not 
superfluous and, thus, that it has some meaning. While the evidence indicates that the petitioner 
performed admirably on the gene sequencing work and research projects to which he was assigned, 
the submitted documentation does not establish that his work equates to original contributions of 
"major significance" in his field. For example, the record does not indicate the extent to which his 
findings have impacted others in the molecular genetics field, nor does it show that the field has 
significantly changed as a result of his work. 
In this case, the letters of recommendation submitted by the petitioner are not sufficient to meet this 
regulatory criterion. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as 
expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Commr. 1988). 
However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's 
eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition 
is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to 
whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795-796. Thus, the content of the experts7 
statements and how they became aware of the petitioner's reputation are important considerations. 
Even when written by independent experts, letters solicited by an alien in support of an immigration 
petition are of less weight than preexisting, independent evidence that one would expect of a 
research scientist who has made original contributions of major significance. Without supporting 

Page 15 
evidence showing that the petitioner's work equates to original contributions of major significance in 
his field, we cannot conclude 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 petitioner has documented his authorship of scholarly articles in professional journals and, thus, 
has submitted qualifying evidence pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
 Accordingly, the 
petitioner has established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
University. There is no supporting evidence showing that these institutions have a distinguished 
- - - 
reputation. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes 
of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sofici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. Further, 
while the petitioner has performed admirably on the research projects to which he was assigned, 
there is no evidence showing that his subordinate roles were leading or critical for the preceding 
institutions. For example, there is no organizational chart or other evidence documenting how the 
petitioner's position fell withn the general hierarchy of his research institutions. We note that the 
etitioner's ostdoctoral fellowships at University - 
University, and the University of 
 were designed to provide specialized 
research experience and training in his field of endea~or.~ 
 The petitioner's evidence does not 
demonstrate how hs temporary appointments differentiated him from the other research scientists 
employed by the preceding institutions, let alone their tenured faculty and principal investigators. For 
instance, unlike there is no evidence that the petitioner has frequently served as a 
principal investigator and initiated numerous research projects of his own. The documentation 
submitted by the petitioner does not establish that he was responsible for the preceding institutions' 
success or standing to a degree consistent with the meaning of "leading or critical role." Accordingly, 
the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Summary 
In this case, we concur with the director's determination that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate 
his receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the ten 
categories of evidence that must be satisfied to establish the minimum eligibility requirements 
necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. 8 C.F.R. §204.5(h)(3). A final merits 
determination that considers all of the evidence follows. 
"Biological scientists with a Ph.D. often take temporary postdoctoral research positions that provide specialized 
" 
research experience." See aceessed on ~ul; 22, 2610, copy 
incorporated into the record of proceeding. 

Page 16 
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: (1) 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. 5 204.5(h)(2); and (2) "that the alien has sustained 
national or international acclaim and that hls or her achievements have been recognized in the field of 
expertise." Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). See also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 
11 19-1 120. In the present matter, 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. $5 204.5(h)(3)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), and (viii). 
Reeardine the documentation submitted for 8 C.F.R. 6 204.5(h)(iv), we cannot conclude that the u u " . , . ,. 
petitioner's review of papers submitted to 
demonstrates sustained national or international acclaim or a level of 
expertise indicating that he is among that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field 
of endeavor. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. 
$8 204.5(h)(2) and (3). Peer review of manuscripts is a routine element of the process by which 
articles are selected for publication in scientific journals. Occasional participation in the peer review 
process does not automatically demonstrate that an individual has sustained national or international 
acclaim at the very top of his field. Reviewing manuscripts is recognized as a professional obligation 
of researchers who publish themselves in scientific journals. Normally a journal's editorial staff will 
enlist the assistance of numerous professionals in the field who agree to review submitted papers. It 
is common for a publication to ask several reviewers to review a manuscript and to offer comments. 
The publication's editorial staff may accept or reject any reviewer's comments in determining 
whether to publish or reject submitted papers. Without evidence that sets the petitioner apart from 
others in his field, such as evidence that he has received and completed independent requests for 
review from a substantial number of journals or served in an editorial position for a distinguished 
journal as of the petition's filing date, we cannot conclude that his level of peer review is 
commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field of 
endeavor. For ex on the editorial board of two 
international journals, 
With regard to the documentation submitted for 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(vi), we note that authoring 
scholarly articles is inherent to scientific research in a university setting.6   or this reason, we will 
the Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2010-11 Edition (accessed at 
that a "solid record of published research is essential in obtaining a permanent position 
involving basic research." seeaccessed on July 7, 2010, copy 
incorporated into the record of proceeding. The handbook also provides information about the nature of employment as a 
postsecondary teacher (professor) and the requirements for such a position. See - - accessed on July 22, 2010, copy incorporated into the record of proceeding. The handbook 
expressly states that faculty members are pressured to perform research and publish their work and that the professor's 

Page 17 
evaluate a citation history or other evidence of the influence of the petitioner's articles to determine 
the impact and recognition his work has had on the field and whether such influence has been 
sustained. As previously discussed, the "citation table" and search results from Google.com 
submitted by the petitioner did not include copies of the citing articles or an accompanying index 
specifically identifying those articles. In this case, the deficient citation information submitted by 
the petitioner is not sufficient to demonstrate that any of his research articles have attracted a level of 
interest in his field commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of 
the field. 
Ultimately, the evidence in the aggregate 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 is presently a 
postdoctoral fellow whose research position equates to a temporary training appointment. He relies 
primarily on an unspecified number of manuscript reviews in the widespread review process, his 
publications with his research supervisors, incomplete and unsupported citation records, the praise of 
members of his field, and the affirmation of hs colleagues that he is important to the laboratory where 
he now works in an inherently temporary position. 
We note that many of the petitioner's references' credentials are impressive. For example,- 
states: 
genetics and molecular biology research. . . . I was a visiting professor of 
College and 
Chinese Outstanding Scientist Award ir 
states: "I am a full Professor and Co-Director of the- 
- in England. . . . I have worked in the field of muscular dystrophy for the past 16 
years, with over 50 primary research articles and invited reviews in this area." 
I am a CEO Science Leader at the 
 which is 
part of the 
 I. . . have 
research record is a consideration for tenure. Moreover, the doctoral programs training students for faculty positions require a 
dissertation, or written report on original research. Id. This information reinforces USCIS' position that publication of 
scholarly articles is not automatically evidence of sustained national or international acclaim, we must consider the field's 
reaction to those articles. 

Page 18 
sciences. I organized and co-organized manv national and international meetings such as 
scientific society 
 the organizer of several scientific conferences, and 
the principal investigator of 26 scientific grants totaling many millions of dollars. I am on the 
- 
editorial board of two international journais, - 
While the petitioner need not demonstrate that there is no one more accomplished than himself to 
qualify for the classification sought, it appears that the very top of his field of endeavor is far above the 
level he has attained. In this case, the petitioner has not established that his achievements at the time of 
filing were commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim in molecular genetics, or 
being among that small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. 

'* '' 
Page 19 
111. Conclusion 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself to such an extent 
that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim and to be within the 
small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's 
achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field at a national or international 
level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Act and the petition may not be approved. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be 
denied by the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the 
initial decision. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1043, affd, 345 
F.3d at 683; see also Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d at 145 (noting that the AAO conducts appellate 
review on a de novo basis). 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the 
benefit sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, 
that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.