dismissed EB-1A Case: Research Scientist

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigratio 
,Services 
JAN 1 8 2005 
FILE: 
IN RE: 
WAC 03 005 5 1856 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
Petitioner: 
Benefici 
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. 4 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
ed your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
\ Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 03 005 51856 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, California Service 
Center, and is now before 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)(l)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. $ 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability in the 
sciences. The director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international 
acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, the petitioner challenges the director's factual and legal analyses. The director's decision could have 
been more focused and, thus, clearer regarding how the petitioner failed to meet the regulatory criteria. 
Nevertheless, the director raised legitimate concerns and his decision will be upheld for the reasons discussed 
below. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(I) Priority Workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are aliens 
described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with Extraordinary Ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry to the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of expertise indicating that the individual 
is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. $204.5(h)(2). 
The specific requirements for supporting documents to establish that an alien has sustained national or 
international acclaim and recognition in his or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
$ 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the director erred in failing to consider the "cumulative effect of 
contributions and evidence in all the categories." This office consistently holds that a petitioner must show that 
he has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. While the director stated that "the 
petitioner's reliance on simply meeting a set number of criteria is misplaced," the director further stated that the 
"submission of documentation relating to at least three of the various kinds of evidence listed" was insufficient. 
We concur with the latter statement. The evidence submitted to meet any criterion must be evaluated as to 
whether it is indicative of or uniquely consistent with national or international acclaim. 
WAC 03 005 5 1856 
Page 3 
This petition seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as a research scientist. The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or international 
acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized award). Barring 
the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, at least three of which must be satisfied 
for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. The 
petitioner has submitted evidence that, he claims, meets the following criteria.' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for 
excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted evidence that he received stipends through a junior research fellowship from the Indian 
Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) while studying for his . In 
2002, the petitioner received a the Skaggs Institute for Chemical Biology at 
th-tituteirector of the Indian Institute of Chemical 
Technology (IICT), asserts that CSIR fellowships are awarded to approximately five percent of the students who 
apply based on national test results. 
In response to the director's the significance of the above fellowships, the 
petitioner submitted a letter from Director of Research at IICT, providing similar 
information t letter. 
The director concluded that every scholar who receives a "nominal grant or stipend from a national institute or 
agency" cannot demonstrate national or international acclaim On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the Nobel 
Prize is the highest award in the field and that any lesser awards should meet this criterion. The petitioner 
asserts that CSIR fellowships are limited to the top five percent of Indian scholars and that the Skaggs 
Postdoctoral fellowship selects from the top scholars internationally. 
The petitioner is not persuasive. The director only raised the Nobel Prize in discussing the one-time 
achievement alternative for establishing eligibility. The director then concluded that the petitioner's 
fellowships were not lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards for excellence in the field. We 
concur with the director. Academic study is not a field of endeavor, but training for a future field of 
endeavor. As such, academic scholarships, including stipends, and student awards cannot be considered 
prizes or awards in the petitioner's field of endeavor. Moreover, competition for scholarships is limited to 
other students. Experienced experts in the field are not seeking scholarships. 
Similarly, experienced experts do not compete for fellowships and competitive postdoctoral appointments. 
The Skaggs Postdoctoral fellowship, while competitive among international postgraduates, is ultimately a job 
offer. A job offer, regardless of the prestige of the entity offering the job, is simply not an award for 
excellence in the field. 
Contrary to the petitioner's implication on appeal, failing to consider academic and postdoctoral fellowships 
as nationally or internationally recognized award does not imply that only a Nobel Prize will suffice. There 
are lesser international awards and numerous national awards that are not 1imited"to students or postdoctoral 
1 
The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
WAC 03 005 51856 
Page 4 
researchers and are in recognition of past achievements as opposed to being designed to fund education or 
employment. 
For the reasons discussed above, the petitioner's fellowships cannot serve to meet this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the jield 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. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of membership in the American Chemical Society (ACS). The petitioner 
initially failed to submit evidence of the membership requirements for this association. The director concluded 
"the record contains no supportive evidence indicating that there are set rules for membership including rigid 
standards to join." 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts, somewhat contradictorily, that ACS is the largest scientific society in the world 
and that it has "rigorous criteria for selecting its members." The petitioner specifically asserts that ACS requires 
a degree in the field, a number of years of experience and nomination by an ACS member. The petitioner 
asserts "any individual is not allowed membership in ACS, e.g. millions of uneducated and unqualified illegal 
immigrants, millions of unqualified refugee immigrants, millions of family based uneducated immigrants and 
millions of unqualified American citizens are nat allowed to join this prestigious organization." (Emphasis in 
original.) In support of these assertions, the petitioner submits a membership application for ACS. 
The fact that ACS does not accept members from outside the chemistry community does not imply that it 
requires outstanding achievements of its members. Obtaining a degree necessary for employment in the field 
and working in the field for a specific number of years are not outstanding achievements. Further, we do not 
consider nomination from two members of an association with so many members to be an outstanding 
achievement. As the petitioner himself acknowledges, ACS is a large association, indicative of a professional 
association that is not limited to those with outstanding achievements in the field. 
Published materials about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media, 
relating to the alien's work in thejield for which classij?cation is sought. Such evidence shall include the 
title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
The petitioner relies on articles that cite his own work. In response to the director's request for evidence 
demonstrating how these citations set the petitioner apart from others in the field, the petitioner provided 
additional citations. 
The director did not specifically discuss this criterion in the final decision. Rather, the director dismissed the 
significance of the citations as follows: 
Citation of the work of others is expected and routine in the scientific community. An alien 
does not establish sustained national or international acclaim by demonstrating that his or her 
work has been cited in print. 
WAC 03 005 5 1856 
Page 5 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that because evidence of published materials is a separate criterion, citations 
must be evidence indicative of national or international acclaim. The petitioner notes that the number of 
citations reflects the impact of the cited article. 
We concur with the petitioner that frequent citation is objective evidence of the impact of the cited article. 
Nevertheless, citations simply do not meet the plain language of this criterion, set forth at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3)(iii). While not clearly articulated by the director, articles which cite the petitioner's work are 
primarily about the author's own work, not the petitioner. As such, they cannot be considered published 
material about the petitioner. Rather, we will consider the citations as evidence that the petitioner's publication 
history is consistent with national acclaim pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either indiyidually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others in the 
same or an alliedJield of speczj?cation for which classiJication is sought. 
The record reflects that the petitioner was requested to referee articles for The Journal of Organic Chemistry 
and the Journal of the American Chemical Society. The requests are both dated April 2002, six months before 
the petition was filed. In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted 
materials from the ACS website regarding peer review. The materials provide: 
Reviewing manuscripts is recognized as a professional obligation of scientists who themselves 
publish in the literature. Authors who repeatedly decline requests to review will be asked to 
submit their own manuscripts to other journals. 
In his final decision, the director stated: 
The petitioner has been selected to act as a reviewer for various journals on organic chemistry. 
The petitioner's participation in judging the work of others researcher[s] appears to have been 
as one of a number of contemporary and successful research scientists. The information about 
these events does not indicate that inclusion in the process of judging the work of others was 
limited to research scientists of extraordinary achievement who have achieved sustained 
national or international acclaim and recognition, nor does this evidence show that the alien is 
one of a very small percentage who has risen to the very top of his field of endeavor. 
(Emphasis in original.) On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the regulations specifically provide that judging the 
work of others is evidence of national or international acclaim. 
While we do not require evidence that the national or international acclaim is required for selection as a judge, 
we cannot ignore that scientific journals are peer reviewed and rely on many scientists to review submitted 
articles. In fact, as demonstrated by the materials quoted above, a failure to perform this responsibility may 
hinder an ordinary researcher's ability to have his own work published. Thus, peer review is routine in the field; 
not every peer reviewer enjoys sustained national or international acclaim. Without evidence that sets the 
petitioner apart from others in his field, such as evidence that he has reviewed an unusually large number of 
articles, received independent requests from a substantial number of journals, or served in an editorial position 
for a distinguished journal, we cannot conclude that the petitioner meets this criterion. Moreover, while the 
petitioner was requested to review articles prior to the date of filing, the record lacks evidence that he actually 
did so prior to the date of filing. As such, it is not clear that this evidence relates to his eligibility as of that date. 
See generally 8 C.F.R. 8 103.2(b)(12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 (Reg. Cornm. 1971). 
WAC 03 005 51856 
Page 6 
Evidence of the alien's original scientijk, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of 
major significance in the field. 
the director of the i etitioner's research group at the Scripps Research Institute, 
! as responsible for the production of materials that serve as intermediates for the 
synthesis of a variety of nucleic acid analogues under investigation" in that 
e petitioner "gradually develbpped [sic] an experimental competence." 
petitioner "could extend ws activity to the important 
investigation of the bas-pairing properties o/f one specific member of that family. 
concludes that the petitioner "will eventually Uevelop to a scientist whose competence in synthetic organic 
chemistry could be an asset to any research group active in that general field." Predictions of future 
competence do not indicate or imply that the pktitioner has already made a contribution of major significance 
to the field. 
a professor at the Instituto asserts that at the Scripps 
and synthesizing nucleic acid structures as 
alternatives to RNA add DNA. recent Ph.D. graduate working at the National 
(TNA) as alternatives to 
TNA analogs are "useful in 
antisense approach for new drug discovery.: a research scientist at NAEJA 
of the date of filing. 
e petitioner's Ph.D. advisor at Osmania University, asserts that while a Ph.D. student, 
carbohydratetinues: 
bioactive glycosubstances for life proc&sses. He d&eloped methodologies and synthesized 
chiral auxiliaries and crown ethers for asymmetric synthesis. [The developed a 
method for the synthesis of chiral spiro acetals through radical cyclizations, which are part 
structures of several natural producds having antibiotic, antifungal and antimicrobial 
properties. He was the first to syntGesize sugar based p-amino acids, which are homo 
analogs of carbohydrate based a-amino acid natural products and glycopeptides. These are 
very important compounds for drug) modification such as side chain in Polyoxins, 
Nikkomycins and Taxol, which is an +inti-tumor compound and also useful as secondary 
structures of proteins. The above workwas published in reputed international journals such 
as Tetrahedron Letters and TetrahedronlAsymmetry. 
[In addition, the petitioner] was also (actively involved in several industrial projects to 
synthesize new chemical entities for New Drug Discover. He synthesized several 
pharmaceutical intermediates, particulaf.ly 2,5disubstituted chiral tetrahydrofurans, which 
are inhibitors of Leukotriens that play a significant role in inflammatory and allergic 
responses, including arthritis, asthma, pqoriasis, and thrombotic disease. These compounds 
are in Phase III clinical trials. 
I 
The petitioner and more independent researchers, all providing 
similar information. former Senior Director of Chemical Sciences at CytoMed, 
WAC 03 005 5 1856 
Page 7 
which funded the petitioner's wo he petitioner and his collaborators filed several patent 
applications based on this work. ho worked closely with the petitioner at th 
Institute, asserts that the petitioner's patented innovations "attracted widespread attention in the 6 eld of 
organic chemistry." I d 
While the director did not clearly address this criterion, he director noted that many of the witnesses had 
collaborated with the petitioner directly or indirectly and stated that the letters focused more on the 
petitioner's potential than past accomplishments. The director also concluded that while patents might 
demonstrate that an inventor meets this criterian, patent applications cannot do so. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the director's recognition that the petitioner is "well respected and 
talented" is sufficient to establish "acclaim." The petitioner also notes that some of the reference letters were 
not from collaborators and that their opinions are sufficient to meet this criterion. 
The opinions of experts in the field, while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a successful 
claim. Evidence in existence prior to the preparation of the petition carries greater weight than new materials 
prepared especially for submission with the pqtition. An individual with sustained national or international 
acclaim should be able to produce unsolicited materials reflecting that acclaim. 
The petitioner submitted two patent applicatians and two patents listing him as one of between 13 and 19 
inventors. While the director erred in concluding that the record did not contain issued patents, we disagree 
with the director's implication that patents are sufficient. In a case involving a lesser classification, this office 
has found that a patent is not necessarily evidence of a track record of success with some degree of influence 
over the field as a whole. See Matter of New York State Dep't. of Transp., 22 I&N Dec. 215,221 n. 7, (Cornm 
1998). Rather, the significance of the i 
the petitioner's patents are assigned t 
not contain letters from these compani 
innovations. Moreover, this work was completed while the petitioner was a Ph.D. student in collaboration with 
several other individuals. While we do not find that student work can never serve to meet this criterion, a 
member of the field who has only recently completed his academic training bears a heavy burden of establishing 
that he is one of the very few at the top of he field including in comparison to the most experienced members of 
the field. It remains, the impact of these innovatibns is not documented in the record. 
In summary, without objective evidence regarding the significance of the petitioner's patented innovations and 
his role in this research, the petitioner cannot edtablish that his Ph.D. thesis work was a contribution of major 
significance. Further, the letter fro -fails to indicate that the petitioner's unpublished (at the 
time of filing) postdoctoral work constltutes a coatribution of major significance. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of schQlarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The petitioner submitted evidence that he had authored six published articles at the time of filing. The 
Association of American Universities' Commiqee on Postdoctoral Education, on page 5 of its Report and 
Recommendations, March 31, 1998, set forth its recommended definition of a postdoctoral appointment. 
Among the factors included in this definition are the acknowledgement that "the appointment is viewed as 
preparatory for a full-time academic and/or research career," and that "the appointee has the freedom, and is 
expected, to publish the results of his or her research or scholarship during the period of the appointment." 
WAC 03 005 51856 
Page 8 
Thus, this national organization considers publication of one's work to be "expected," even among researchers 
who have not yet begun "a full-time academic and/or research career." This report reinforces CIS'S position that 
publication of scholarly articles is not automatically evidence of sustained acclaim, we must consider the 
research community's reaction to those articles. 
The record contains evidence that one of the petitioner's articles was cited nine times by coauthors; a second 
article was cited eight times, five of which were independent; a third article was cited once by a coauthor; a 
fourth article was cited five times by independent researchers; a fifth article was cited five times by coauthors, 
and the sixth article was cited four times, three times by independent researchers. 
The director did not specifically address this criterion in his decision. On appeal, the petitioner lists his 
publications and patents and asserts that he meets this criterion. 
The petitioner's patents are not scholarly articles and have been considered above. None of the petitioner's 
articles have been cited more than five times by independent researchers. While self-citation is a normal and 
expected practice, citations by coauthors cannot demonstrate that the petitioner's work is influential beyond his 
collaborators. Five independent citations of an article is not evidence that the article is widely cited. As the 
petitioner's publication history is not consistent with national acclaim, we cannot conclude that he meets this 
criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has pet$ormed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that 
have a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner claims to have played a leading or critical role as a postdoctoral researcher at the Scripps 
Research Institute. The petitioner's supervisor at that instituteconfirms that the petitioner is 
a postdoctoral researcher at the institute. 
We have already considered the petitioner's claimed contributions above. What is relevant when considering 
this criterion is the nature of the role the petitioner was hired to fill and the national reputation of the employer. 
While the Scripps Research Institute may have a distinguished reputation, we cannot conclude that every 
postdoctoral researcher who plays an rmportant role in a laboratory at a distinguished institute plays a leading or 
critical role for the institute as a whole. 
3 
Moreover, we reiterate here that the petitioner "gradually developped [sic] 
an experimental redicts that the petitioner cccould extend his activity 
to the important problems of the synthesis and investigation of the bas-pairing properties of one specific 
member of that family," he does not assert that the petitioner has played a leading or critical role for the 
Scripps Research Institute. Rathe r concludes that the petitioner "will eventually develop to 
a scientist whose competence in syn etic organic chemistry could be an asset to any research group active in 
that general field." 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signijkantly high remuneration for services, 
in relation to others in the field. 
The director noted that the petitioner had not demonstrated that he meets this criterion. As noted by the 
petitioner on appeal, the petitioner has never asserted that he meets this criterion. We concur with the director 
that the petitioner has not demonstrated that he meets this criterion. We note that the director does not appear to 
WAC 03 005 5 1856 
Page 9 
have concluded that failing to meet this criterion precludes eligibility; rather, the director correctly concluded 
that the record lacked evidence to meet this criterion in addition to lacking sufficient evidence to meet the other 
criteria claimed. 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate that the 
alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage who has risen 
to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself as a research 
scientist to such an extent that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to 
be within the small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence indicates that the petitioner shows 
talent as a research scientist, but is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set him significantly above 
almost all others in his field. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 
U.S.C. 8 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.