dismissed EB-1A Case: Science

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
iw,ia of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
wic>li~t~gt~i. Ii(1 ~i~ilo~~oo(~ 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: Oflice: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Dat~,: ApR 0 4 2011 
IN RE: 
PET1TlON: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extl.aordill;li-y Ahility Pui-\ua~~r to 
Scction 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act: 8 L7.S.C. $ I 151ih)( I )(.A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTKLJCTIONS: 
Enclosed ple;lse rind the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office ill y011r C~ISL~. ,411 (11' IIK 
tlocumen~\ related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decltlc~l )olir case. I'~':I\L, 
hc ;~dvised th:~t ;uly fui-ther inquii-y that you might have concerning your case mu\[ hc III:I~C lo tli:~l olficc. 
II you helicvi~ the I;IW was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our dcci\io~i. or yl:~~ II;I\C ;rtlditioi~:ll 
il~llrlii;~~i~~i t11;1t yo11 wish to have considered, you may file a motioli to reco~isider or ;I mo~ioli 10 rcopi.11. 
The speci1.i~ rcquirerneilts for filing such ;I request car1 he found nr 8 C.F.R. \i IO.3.5. ,\I1 iilotioii\ 11111\1 he 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filins 21 Fornr 1-2000. h'otlcc ol ..\ppc;ll or 
Motion. with ;I fcc of $630. Please he awai-e that 8 C.F.R. 3 1035(a)( l )(i) require\ ~II;II ;illy iii~tiol~ 11111\t 
be filed ~.ithiil 30 days of the decision that the rnotion seeks to reconsidcroi- reopc.~~. 
7'h;lnk you. 
.., . - - 
Perry Rhc~, . ?. 
' Clilef. ~\dmit~istr;u~ve Appeals Office 
IIISCUSSION: Thc employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director. Texa 
Service Centel-, on November 3, 2009. and is now before the Administrative Appeal. Officc (AAO) 
on appeal. The appcal will be dismissed. 
The pctitiotler sccks classification as an employment-bascd immigr:lnt 1~11rs11;1111 to scctioll 
203(h)(l)(A) of the lmmigratio~l and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. S 1153(b)(l)(A). ah an 
alicn of extraordinary ability. The director determined that the petitioner had tiot csrc~blishetl tlic 
tsequihite extraordinary ability and failed to submit extensive documentation of his sitstaitictl 
national or international acclaim. 
C:oligrcsh set a \!cry high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by rcquirins tl~rou~li tllc 
statute that the petirioner demonstrate "sustained national or intcrnatiotial acclc~inl" alitl 1)1c<ctil 
"extcnsi\,e tlocumcntation" of his or her achievements. See ~ection 203(h)(l )(i\)(i) of the ,Act 
atid 8 C.F.K. 9 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(11)(3) \latch that all 
alicr~ can ehtablisli sustained national or international acclaim through evidence ol a one-titile 
achieverncnr. specifically a major, internationally recognized acvard. At1sc111 rite reccipr 01' x~tclt 
an award, the regulation outlines tell categories of specific evidencc. 8 C.F.l<. s$ 204.5(11)(3)(i) 
tl~rough (x). The pctitioner must submit qualifying evidence u~ldcr at leaht tllrce of thc tell 
regulatory categories of cvidence to establish the basic eligibility requircmcnt\. 
On appeal. tlic petitioner claims that he mccts at least three of the regularory critcri;~ at X C.F.K. 
$ 204.5(h)(3). 111 addition, the petitioner argues: 
[Tlhere is another erroneous fact associated with the decision that 1 wor~lcl like to 
bring to your attention. Denial letter on thc applicant's 1-485 (dlrtcd Noveliibcr 2. 
2009) statcs that the 1-140 petition was denied on October 21, 2009. nici~nilig \\,ell 
before receiving the petitioner's response to the RFE issued or wilhoul act~1311) 
waiting for the petitioner's response eveti though there was still 111ore tlii~n a \zcck 
left lor the dcadline to elapse. Although the adjudicator has mcntionrtl recei\ ins 
tlic pctilioner's responsc to the RFE, thc decision 011 1-140 (as \vcll as 1-48>) 
appear\ to have been made beforehand without act~~ally waiting to cv;~li~atc the 
RFE response. Eveti though the denial letter on 1-140 is dated Novc~iihcr 3. rhc 
tlecisiort or1 1-140 was originally made on October 2 1. 2009 as L+:r\ c\.itlctir lr-om 
the 1-485 denial letter. Therefore, this petitioner believes that cvide~lcc s~lbmittctl 
as 1x11-t of the RFE response was not actually given due considcr;~tio~i \vliilc 
evaluating thc 1-140 petition and therefore, arrived at tlic cn-oncous conclusioli. 
A review of ihc record of proceeding rellects that the director denied For111 1-140 o~i Novc1111~er 
3, 2009. Accortlil~g to the denial of the petitioner's Form 1-485. Applicatioti to KL,~. 'U \tcr 
Pernianerit Residence or Adjust Status, the director indicated that the petitioticr'i Fortn 1- 140 was 
denied on October 21, 2009. A review of the director's decision of Fort11 I140 f:tils to rcflcct 
that thc director prc-adjudicated the petition prior to receipt of the petitioncr'h rcipotl\c to tllc 
director\ ~scqucst for additional evidencc pursuant to the regulation at X C.F.li. 3 103.?(b)(X). 111 
fact, the director rncntioned in his decision that the response to additional cvidc~~cc was reccivetl 
on October 28. 2009, and discussed some of the petitioner's cvidctlce subtnittccl in sesponc ttr 
the ~CCILIC" Sor cvidelice. It appears that the director simply provided the in~.orrect tlenial tlatc of 
thc petition in the petitioner's Form 1-485 denial letter. 
Even if the AAO determined the director had committed such an error. ii is not clc~lr \vh:it 
remedy would he appropriate beyond the appeal process itself. It would serve 110 usclitl purposc 
to remand the case when the director discussed the petitioner's documentary cvitlencc tll~tt LV;I\ 
suhniitted both at the time of the original filing of the petition and in respollsc to the tlircctor'\ 
requcst Ibr additional evidence. Further, on appeal. the AAO will evalu:ttc all 01 the pctitioncr's 
cvidence as it relates to the petitioner's eligibility for the claimed crileria p~~~.s~tant to tlic 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). An application or petitio~i that fails to cuniply uith tlic 
technical requirements of the law may be denied by the AAO even if the Service Ccnlcr docs ilot 
identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial decision. .Yet r 11r1.. I. 1.. 
Uuited Sttrrcs, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001). r!ff'rl, 345 F.ltl 683 (9"' Cir. 2001): 
.set rrlso Solrr111c 1,. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting that the AAO conduct\ 
appellate review on a rlr t~ovo basis). 
1. Law 
Section 203(h) of the Act states, in perti~lent part, that: 
(I) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available ... to clualilicd 
inl~rrigrants who are aliens described in any of the following suhpal-;~~ral,li\ (A) 
tI1rough (0: 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alie~i is described ill (hi\ 
subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the science\. 
ails. education, business, or athletics which has heen 
demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have hccn 
recognized in the field through cxtcnsi\.c 
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 heneflt prospectively the United States. 
(I.$. Citi/enship and Im~liigration Services (USCIS) and legacy lmniigmtion and N~tt~lrali~ation 
Service (INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a vcry tiigli st~~ncl~~rcl l'or 
individuals seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. Se(, H.R. 723 101" <'on$.. 2tl 
Sess. 59 (1990): 56 Fed. Reg. 60897. 60898-99 (Nov. 29. 1991). The term "cxtraortlil~ar) ability" 
I-eCers only to those individuals in that small percentage who have risen 10 the very top of the 
field of endeavor. It/. and 8 C.F.R. 5; 204.S(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3) requircs that the petitioncr dcmol~str~rte hi\ or hcr \~~\tainetl 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievcments in the field. Such acclailii lliusi hc 
established eithcl- through evidence of a one-time achievcmcnt (that is. :I major. intrr~tatitr~ic~l 
recognized award) or through thc submission of qualifyi~ig evidcncc ~lnder at lcast three oi tlic 
I>llowing tcn categories of evidence. 
(i) Documcntaiion of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or intertia1ion;tily 
I-ccognizcd prizes or awards for excellellcc in the field of endeavor: 
(ii) Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the ficltl lor \vllicli 
classificatioli is sought, which requirc outstanding achicvcnle~lts of thcir illcmhcrx. 
as judged by recognized national or international experts in thcir disciplillcs or 
fields: 
(iii) Published material about the alien in professional or major tr:tde publicalions or 
other major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classil'icatio~l ih 
sought. Such evidencc shall include the title, date, and author of thc nlntcrial. and 
any necessary translation; 
(iv) Evidence of thc alien's participation, either individually or on a panel. a\ a jlltlge 
of the work oS others in the same or an allied field of specialization for wliich 
classification is sought; 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic. or hu\inesh 
rclatcd contributions of major significance in the field; 
(vi) Evitlcnce of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles ill tllc licltl. ill 
~xofcfiiolial or major trade publications or other major media: 
(vii) Evidence of rhc display of the alien's work in thc field at artihtic cahihiiions or 
showc;lses: 
(viii) Evidcnce that the alien has performed in a lcading or critical role lor 
organizations or establishrne~lts that have a distinguished reputation: 
(ix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other- signiircanlly high 
rcrnuncration Sor services. in relation to others in the field; or 
(x) Evidclicc of commercial successes in the perlbrming arts. as stio\v~l hy box olhce 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) revic~ctl tlic tlcnial ol a 
petition filctl ~lntler this classification. K~lzaricui v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1 1 15 (9th Cir. 20 10). Althouyl~ 
the coull upheld the AAO's decision to deny tlie petition, [he court took issue uirli ihe ;\AO'\ 
evaluation of evitlence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion.' With rcspect to the critcri;~ 
at X C.F.R. $5 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS lnny have %~i\ed 
legitimate coneenis abo~~t the significance of the evidence sublnitted to 111ect tliosc two criteria. 
those concet-iis should have been raised in a subsequent "final inerits deterrnination." lil. 
Thc court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper undcrsta~itlin: of the regi~l:ltions. 
Instead of parsing the significance of' evidence as part of the initial inquiry. thc ~~LII-t \tc~tctl that "rhc 
proper procctlure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)." 31id if' tlic 
petitioner I'ailetl to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applic:~lit has l':tilctl 
to satisfy the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the A.40 co~iclutlctl)." It/. at 
1 122 (citing to 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)). The court also explained the "l.i~ial nierits detcr1iiiliatiol1" a\ 
the  corolla^-y to this procedure: 
If a peritioner has submitted the requisite evidence, USCIS determi~~c lvhether tlic 
evidcncc tle~nonstrates both a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one 
ol that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the1 irl field of' cntleavor." 
8 C.F.R. $ 204S(h)(2), and "that the alien has sustained natioli;~l or ilitcrnationc~l 
ncclaini ant1 that his or her achievements have been recognized ill [tic licltl 01' 
cxpertix." 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3). Only aliens whose acliieve~iic~~c\ ha\c gal-l~c~rtl 
"sustained iiational or internatiotral acclaim" are eligihle for all "cxtl-aortlinar) 
~rbility" visa. X 1J.S.C. $ 1153(b)(l)(A)(i). 
Thus. Kti:iiriorr sets fo~lh a two-part approach where the evidence is first countctl a~itl tlic~i 
colisiderctl in the context of a final merits determination. In reviewing Servicc Center tlecisiolis. thc 
AAO will apply the test set forth in Krizclrian. As the AAO maintains (lt, IIOI.(I rcvie\v. the .4AO 
will co~itluct ;I new analysis if the director reached his or her conclusion by using a olle-step an:llyis 
rather tliall the tho-step analysis dic~ated by thc Kciznriuil cou~t. See .Sptvii.l~r lIiirc,rl~ri,\i~,\. Irrc, 1,. 
[Ji~irctl Sticrcc. 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1043, c!ff'd, 345 F.3d at 683: srr cclso .Sol/iiirc 1.. I1O.l. 38 I F3tl 
;rt 145 (noting that the AAO conducts appellate review on 11 tlc ilovo basis). 
11. Analysis 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
I Specifi~.;lliy. thc c~~ul-l stated that the AAO had unilaterally irnposcd novcl. sub\tanti\c. c\ ~<lil!llitl~.! ~CCILIIICIIICIII\ 
hcyond those set forth in the regulations at X C.F.R. 5 204.S(h)(3)(iv) and X C.F.R. $ 204,51h1(3)i~i1. 
I'liis petition. filed on April 30, 2009, seeks to classify ttic pclitiol~cr a\ an alien \riil~ 
cxtrao~.di~ia~-y ability as a scientist in nutritional and food sciences. The pctirio11i.r ]la\ \c~llll~iitctl 
cvide~ice pertaining to the following criteria under the rcgulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(11)(3). - 
Iloc~r~rrrc~t~totio,~ if re alien's receipt of lesser 1rccrio1lol1.1 or ;r~~~~rrri~tIor~iil/~ 
rc,c.o,yrli:c~d pri;es or nwcrrd.s,fi~r excellrtzce iri theJi'eld (?/'ertdecivor. 
.fhe director fount1 that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for this crircrio~~. At rlic rinii: 
of the original filing of the petition, counsel submitted the following documcnr:~ry c\ idellcc: 
I. A letter. dated January 6, 1994, to the petitioner Srom - 
11 lll~ 
who stared that the pctirioner M;I~ 
awarded a scholarship "to follow a degree progan~lr~c at our 
Institute"; 
2. A letter, dated December 21, 2000, to the petitioner fro111 - 
rctlccting that the petitioner was awarded a scholarship of S2751nionili l'or 
3. 
- reflecting that the petitioner was "IIOIII~II;LI~~ ;IS 
the recipient of a ill thc 
amount of $750 for the 2001-2002 academic year," and notin: that rhe 
petitioner was required to fulfill additional obligations in orilcr lo 1-ccei~c 
rtie .;chol;irship; 
4 A Certificate 01. Award to the ~etitio~ier fro111 the 2002 - 
We note that in response to the director's request for additional evidence pur\uallr ro ihe 
regularion at 8 C.F.R. 103.2(h)(8), counsel submitted a self-co~npilcd list cl:~i~~~i~ig the 
petitioner's receipt of the following additional awards: 
a. Postgraduate Research Fellow from them 
The pctitii>ner diics nil1 claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not disc~ls\ccl ill ilii\ 11t,ci\ii\11. 
h. i 11 
200 1 : and 
e. undergraduate Student Scholarship 
The plain languagc of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204,5(h)(3)(i) requircs "Itllocuriicntatior~ of the 
alien's reccipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or aw;lrds lor exeeII~~~ce 
in thc field of endcavor." Moreovcr, it is the petitioner's hurde~i to establish eligibility l'or every 
element of this criterion. Not only must the petitioner demonstrate his rcccipt of pri~es a~icl 
awards, he must also dcrnonstrate that those prizes and awards are nationally or i~~tcr~iatior~ally 
rccog~iized l'or cxccllencc in the field of endeavor. In other words, the pctitio~icr mu\[ estahlisli 
that hi\ prizes and awards arc rccognized nationally or interllatio~~ally for excelle~lcc in the lielcl 
hcyond the awnrdi~ig entities. 
Regarding items 1 - 3 and a - c, academic study is not a field of cndca~or. but training lor a 
luture ficltl ol endeavor. As such, academic scholarships, st~~dcrlt award\. postdoctoral 
fellowships. and financial aid awards cannot be considered nationally or intcrnationall! 
recognized prizes or awards in the petitioner's field of endeavor. Moreover, finnnci:ll :lit1 awartls 
in the form ol scholarships arc reserved for students in need of financial assi\ta~icc to pay lor 
tuition and not based on excellence in the field. Therefore, the petitioner failccl to cstablish t11;lt 
hi\ scholarships are nationally or internationally recognized prizes 01- awartls lor exccllc~icc in 
the ficltl. Moreover, thc pctitioner failed to submit any docurncntary c\ itlc~iec bcyontl the 
awardi~ig entities to demonstrate that the scholarships arc rccognized nationally or interr~atio~ially 
for cxcellence in the ficld of endeavor. Finally, while they may be preskigious. fcllouhi[~s. 
scholarships. and othcr sources of competitive financial support arc not nation:~lly or i~~tcrnationally 
recognized prizes or awards because only othcr students - not recognizctl expert\ ill the licltl - 
compete for such Suncling. We cannot conclude that receiving fundirlg lor o~ic's rcscarcli slid 
:~cadcmic training constitutes receipt of t~ationally or internationally rccognizctl pri/es or awartls 
lor cxcellence in the ficld of endeavor. Such support funding is pre~c~itcd rlot lo c\tahIi\l~ccl 
researchers with active professional carcers, but rather to studcnts scckinf to lurther tlicir 
research. training. and experience. Academic awards and t1onol.s reccivccl wliile prcparirlg for a 
vocation lrll suhstatirially short of constituting a national or il~ternatiori:ll pri/c or award lor 
recog~iition in the field. We note that the plairi language ol the rc~ulatioo :it 8 C'.I:.R. 
9 204.5(11)(3)(i) requires the petitioner to submit cvidcncc of his rcccipt of pri~cs or nwartls. 
However. cou~isel failed to submit any documer~tary cvidcncc demonstr-ating the petitio~icr'\ 
receipt of items a - c, as claimed in his self-compiled list. Without docunic~ita~-y cviclcncc to 
~LIP~JOI-t the claim, the assertions of counsel will not satisfy the pctitiol~cr's hurtlcn ol prool. The 
~rnsuplx)rtcd assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Miirrcdr (!/Ohiii,yhc~t(i. li) I&N Dee. 
533. 534 11.2 (BIA 1988): Mc~tr~r of Loureurzo, 19 I&N Dcc. 1.3 n.2 (BIA l'lX.3): Mi~ttci. 01 
Krit?rirr:-Sorrc.l~(,:. 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). 
Regarding item 4, while the petitioner demo~lstrated that he won the Bc\t Stutlent Postcr at the 
2002 the petitionel- failed to suhmit ally tloc~~riic~~~ary 
evidence establishing that the award is nationally or internationally recogrlizecl for cxccllc~icc ill 
the lieltl. Merely submitting evidence of the petitioner's receipt of a prize or award is 
insufficiclit to nicct the plain language of the regulation at X C.F.R. 9 204.5(11)(3)(i) \\itlioc~t 
documentary evidence reflecting that the prize or award is nationally or ilitcrn;ltionally 
recognized for cxccllence in the field of endeavor. 
Regarding itetii 5, the petitioner submitted screenshots Srom wcb\itc reilectin~ 
diplomate stat([\ is obtained by becoming a member of. In order to hccomc a 11ien1ticr. 
an applicant ni~ht complete an application, submit his or her transcripts. pay nicnihcr\hip tl~~cs. 
and s~~cccssf~tlly pass all examination. We are ~iot persuaded that becolning a diplo~natc equates 
to n nationally or internationally recognized prize or award lor excellcl~cc in thc l'icltl: rather 
diplomate status reflects membership status with' Furthermore. thc petitioner failcd to 
submit any documentary evidence beyond wcbsite to estahlish that hciny an- 
Diplomate is a nationally or intelllationally rccognized prize or award for cxccllence ill the lieltl. 
As discussed. the plain language of this regulatory criterion specifically requires that the 
petitioner's pri/.es or awards be nationallj~ or ir~terrrcrtio~tc~lly rccog~ri:c,i/ lilr cxccllcrlcc it1 tiis 
field. In this case, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that his prizes or awards arc tanta~noullt to 
nationally or intcrnationally rccognized prizes or awards for excellence in the fielcl ol r~itlcavor. 
;\ccordingly. thc petitioner failed to estahlish eligihility for this criterion 
Pri/~/i.s/~c~t/ ~iloteriol trhorrr the trlierz ill profe.s.sioilti/ or ii~c!;or trorlc /)rth/ic~ri/ioir.\ (11- 
otlrcr iiro;or tnediu. reltrtiizg to the nlieir's work ill the ,fic/rl lor. ~~./iir./~ 
c~lit.v.sifi~~otiorr i.s .so~cgl~t. S~cc'h evidetzce shtrll ii~clridc, the title, dotc. ciircl riii/1101- (11 
rlrc, ~~i(ttc~ri(il. cr11d LOI~ i~ece~sirry trc1ils10tiot1. 
A review, of the I-ecord of proceeding fails to reflect that the peritioliel- cl;ril,lcd cli:lii)llity lor lllk 
criterion at the ti~nc of the original filing of the petition or in response to ttic director's rcq~~cst 
for additional cviticnce. However, on appeal, the petitioner is now claiming cliyihility for this 
criterio~i. As such. tlic director could not have erred in his dccision as tlie pctitioticr is only 
claiming eligihility for this criterion for the first time on appeal. 
On appeal. the petitioner submitted an article and stated that it "was p~lhlishctl after tiling the 
original Form 1-2908." We note that according to the translation, the article uas publislicd (111 
December 20"' h~tt failed to specify the year. However, since the petitioner clailnetl that thc 
article was published after he filed Form 1-290B on December 3. 2009. it i\ I-easoliahlc to :r\\unic 
that thc article was published on Decembcr 20, 2009. 
The petition was liled on April 30, 2009. The article was puhlishcd atrer the filins of the petition. 
Elicibility - ni~lst hc etablished at the time of filing. Therefore. we will not con\itlcr this article :is 
cvidencc to cst;~blisti the petitioner's eligihility. 8 C.F.R. $S 103.2(h)(l). (12): Mir//cr (11 
hs the pctitioncl- did not claim eligibility tor the membership criterion undcr X C.F.K. \ 2(1~1.51hli3)(iii :n an! 
lime in thi pl-<iceeding. we will not further address the petitioner's ~lieniher\hip ill- 

AII application or petitiori that fails to comply with the technical rcquirenic~its of the l;lw 111;iy he 
de~iied by the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of tlic grouritls for tlel~ial ill 
tlic initial decision. Sec Spc~ncer Enterprises, In(,. J Uizirrtl .Srctre.s. 229 F. Supp. 2tl at 1043. 
c!tf'rl, 345 F.3d at 683; .see trlso Solrctne v. DOJ, 381 F.3d at 145 (noting that rhc 4.40 co~ltIucr\ 
appellate rcview on a rie rlovo basis) 
'I'he plain languagc of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3)(v) require\ "lei\ itlel~cc oi tlic 
alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or husincss-related col~trihutiolis of major 
significance in the field." In compliance with Kiizc~ricrrr, the AAO nlust H)CLI\ 011 rlie p1ai11 
1:lnguage of the regulatory criteria. 596 F.3d at 1121. Here, the evidence must he rcvic\\etl to ~cc 
wlicthcr it rises to the level of original scientific-related contributions "of rnaior \igniiical~cc ill 
the held." 
A rcview of the record of proceeding reflects that at the time of thc origir~al l'iii~~g ol rhc pcririo~i. 
counsel submitted a sclf-compiled list of the citations of the petitioncr's work hy others :inti 
indicated at the top of the document that it is "details of the partial list of \cholal-ly uorkh 
publisheti ill international peer reviewed journals citing petitioner's puhlishcd \vork." Vv"v't1iout 
documentary evidence to support the claim, the assertions of counscl ill not sty the 
pcritior~er's hurtlen of proof. The unsupported assertions of counsel do not cor~.\tirlrre c\ idcrlcc. 
Morror c!f'Oi)cii,yher~cr. I9 I&N Dec. at 534 n.2; Mutier (?f'Lotrrc,orlo. 19 I&N Dcc, at 3 n.2: hlct~lci- 
of'Koi~iirc~:-Si~r~(~lrer. 17 I&N Dcc. at 506. We note here that counsel tlitl i~lhnlit ;I ~crecii\l~ot 
1.rotii that reflected that the petitioner's articles were ci~etl 132 timi.\. Ho\vc\cr. 
the set-ccnshot only lists the tiarnc of the publication a11d docs 1101 lit 11ic 11:11iic\ 01' the 
pctiriur~er's arriclcs that were cited by others. As sucl~, we are unable II) ~CIC~IIIIII~ if :rliy 01tlic\c 
citations arc self-citations by the petitioner or his co-authors. Morcovcr. the petitioner al\o 
submitted a self-compiled list and indicated at the top of the document that it "is n list of sotlie oi 
my articles in peer reviewed international journals that can be found by Usil~g Google Schol:~r 
program." However, the petitioner failed to submit any documentary evitlcncc \~~pportilig hi\ 
;~ssertions, srlch as screenshot from Goo,yle Scltolur showing the citation of his \vor!i hy others. 
Going on rccortl without supporting docume~itary evidence is not sufficicn~ lor purl)o\c\ 01' 
~r~eeting tlic hurden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of'Sofic.i. 22 l&N Dee. 158. I65 
(Comm. 1998) (citing Matter (g Trecrsrrre Crafi of Grllforirio. 14 1&N Dee. I00 (Reg. Co1ii111. 
1972)). In rcsponsc to thc director's request for evidence, counsel suhmi~tetl allother self- 
compiled list ant1 claimed that "[tjhese details were provided either by Googlc Sclic~inr or= 
Again. counsel failed to submit any documentary supporting hi\ a\~cr-tiol~s. 
The petitioner also submitted recomrncndation letters that were writrcn oil hehali of thc 
petitioner tliscussing specific articles that were written by the petitioner. For inhtancc: 
indic;lte if this article was ever citcd 
\tatecl illan the 
pctitioner "was invited to contribute towards a new hook series to he ~p~~hlisllcd hy 11s - 
I louever. the rccortl 
f. '11 '1. s to reflect if the petitioner ever contributed towards the book, let alone if the petitioner'\ 
work was ever cited from the book 
Althougli 
"was an invited author on a review articlc p~~blished ill 
to identify the name of the article. 11) ;itltlition. - 
failed to identify that the petitioner's article was cited by others. 
While the nulnher of total citations is a factor, it is not thc only factor to he consitlcretl in 
dctcrlniliing the petitioner's eligibility for this criterion. Gencrally. the ilu~~lhcr ol citation\ ir 
rctlcctive of the petitioner's original findings and that the field has taken sonic intcrc~l to the 
petitioncr's work. However, it is not an automatic indicator that the petitioner'\ work has been 
i?f.~nr!jor .si,y~lific.cli~c.e in rllr,fi'el'l. 111 this case, according to thc scrccnshot I'ronl 23 
of the petitioner's articles havc been cited 132 times with the highest article citctl 27 titncs. and the 
majority of the pctitioner's articles cited less than ten times, including I3 a~ticlc\ that uere citcd one 
time. Wc are not persuaded that such citations are reflective that the petitioner'\ work h;ls lhccn ol' 
nlajor sig~lilrca~icc in the field. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to s~~hrnlt ;III) tlocu~i~c~~tary 
evidence demonstrating that his articles have been unusually intlucntial. such as nlticlcs that tliscuss 
in-depth the petitioner's findings or credit the petitioner with influencing or impacting the ficld. In 
this case, the pctitioner's docume~itary evidence is not reflective of having a sig~~ificant impact on 
the field. Mcrcly submitting documentation reflecting that the petitioner's wol-k has been citctl hy 
others in their p~~bliched material is insufficient to establish eligibility for this cl-iterion withol~t 
docunicntary evidencc reflecting that the petitioner's work has been 01' a major sig~~il'ica~ice in the 
ficld. We are not persuaded that the tnoderate citations of thc petitioner's articles are rclleclive 
ol the significance of his work in the field. Thc petitioner failed to establish how those findings 
or citations of his work by others have significantly contributed to his ficltl a\ a \\I~ole. 
Furthermore. a review of the record of proceeding reflects that the petitioner \uh~l~ittetl ;itltlitional 
recommendation letters. In this case, while the recommendation lettel- praihc the petitioner lor 
his work in nutritional anti food sciences, they fail to indicate that his contribution\ arc ol III~!~~II 
Page 12 
.si,y~!fic.orrc.e in the field. The letters provide only general statements uitl~o~~t oifcrins an) 
specific infomiation to establish how the petitioner's work has heen of major \isnilicancc. IFor 
instance: 
listed several examples of the petitioner's original findings fro111 his 
research and work, such as 
~owever.failed to indicate that the petitioner3\ work h;~s heell oi. 
"major significance in the field." while stated that \lie is intcrestetl in the 
petitioner's work because it is similar to her own, she failed explain the significance of the 
petitioner's work outside her own research. also tliscus\ctl tl~c petitioner'\ 
research in However, in discusin:l the inlpact of ihis 
research. she statetl that "[wlhat and how much consutnption of these in~l~orr:int (lietar) 
co~nponents c.olrltl affect how healthy we live and what state of health we i~rc~y leavc hehi~~tl for 
the gcnerations which follow are vital issues to our national interests \cml>liasi\ c~tldetll." 
Clearly. the significance of the petitioner's work has yet to be deterrnincd on the field. 
brief claimed that the petitioner's "work and international rcvicws on niilk 
fatty acid composition . . . is of international reputation, and shows that lie has contrihritcd 
considerably to the ficlti." Again, the letter from fails to reflcc~ ~liat the [~ctitioncr 
has made con~rihutions of "major significance in the field." The rc$ulation at X C'.17.K. 
9 204.5(11)(3)(v) not only requires the alien to make original contributions hut also rctluirc\ those 
colitributions to be of major significance. The lack of specific inlbrn~atio~i does 110t ot'fcr ;1n) 
cvitlence that the pctitioner's contributions have been of major significance. 
calcium anti nhosnhate homeostasis "orovidelsl fundamental knowledge for \cicntisl\ in viirious ~ ~ 
1~ ~ 1 - 
fields" ant1 "are much appreciated." failed lo provitlc any additional 
inforrn;~tion reflecting the influence or impact of the petitioner's work in the ficltl as n \vhole. 
Wc arc not persuaded that providing fundamental knowledge is sufficient to tlc~nonstratc that the 
petitioner's contributions have been of major significance in the fieltl. i\g;~in. tile lack 01. 
dctailctl information explaining the significance of the petitioner's work ill the ficlcl i.;~ils to 
c\t;~hlish eligibility Sol- this criterion. 
indicated that the petitioner "has dernonst~-ated Iiow we can incrcasc = 
content of milk and other dairy products, and how that colrld be utilized in nlinimizinl: the risk oi' 
some of these chronic diseases using dietary means [emphasis added].'' Altho~~gh - 
indicated that the petitioner's research corrld be utilized in minimi~ing tlic risk oi' chronic 
tliseases. tic failed to indicate that the petitioner's research has ever been ~ltili/.ctl in thc ficltl. or 
chronic diseascs have been reduced, so as to establish that the pctitioncr'\ ~vork has been of 
niajor significancc in the field. Witho~~t evidence i~idicating the petitioner's uork is nlrcarly 
being applied in the field. the petitioner cannot establish eligibility for this criterion hasctl o~i 
posible or speculative outcomes. 
Sinlilarly, whiledescribed some of the research that the pctirio~icr \+orked oli at 
a~id illdic:~tcd original contributions, failed to discuss thc si:niticancc trl the 
petitioner's work on the field. Rather, indicated that "tllcsc \tcroitl re:ulatc 
phosphatc and calcium transport through unconventional receptors has great ii~i~~li~~~itir~ti.~ li)r 
new therapeutic strategies in treating diseases such as osteoporosis leniphasi\ atldcdl." 
failed to identify any strategy that has been developed as a result ol thc petitioner'\ 
research. It is insulficient to meet the plain language of this regulation h:~sctl on po\\ihle 
implications. without evidence reflecting that the petitioner's work i\ actuall) Ihcitig npl~lictl ill 
the field. 
briefly described the petitioner's research in "extrusio~l proccs\ilig" aud 
"procyanidin rnonomers and dimers" and indicated that "[plreliminary results ohtainctl lro~ii a 
few trials have been extremely encourc~ging and further positive results l1.0111 tliix \ILI~~ (.oii/(/ 
lead the way to the development of novel functional loods and neutraceutic;~Is tlcrivcd 11-0111 
waste products." failed to indicate that the petitioner's I-csearch ant1 work ha~e 
significantly inlluericcd his field. Instead, stated that the petitiolier's work coultl 
ile\,clop functional loods. There is no indication that functiorial footls have hcco dcvclopetl as a 
rcsult of the petitioner's work, so as to establish that he has made contributions ol ~iiqior 
significance. It will not suffice to meet this regulatory requit-ement based oli possihle or I'UIII~C 
i~iiplicatiotis without evidence that his work has already been applied in the ficltl. 
- disc~lssed the petitioner's research regardin "extrusiol~ iprocciiing. .. 
However. when addressing the significance of the petitioner's work. ~iiercl y i~ldiciltcd 
that his work was published in two articles. As indicated above. the Sac1 that tlic petitiouer'r 
work has been published is illsufficient to meet this regulation without cvitlclice tlcliiot~\trati~l~ 
that his work is of "major significance in the field." Morcovcr, d~scusscd tlic 
petitioner's research in the "improvement of assay techniques." In this -. cii\c. ~~i(lici~tciI 
that a ~iiari~~script has hecu s~~bmitted for publication and "ltlhese findings ~t.111 c~~c~tir~~rill~~ Icati to 
hetter and more accurate estimates of concentratio~is of procyanidins in footls that ~lill alloa 1.c~ 
calculation of intake by humans." ~learly.s~eculated on the impact ol tlic pctitio~icr's 
work on the field without demonstrating that it work has already inllue~lccd the field in a 
significant manner. Finally, discussed the petitioner's current rcscarch ili ..the ellect\ 
of phytochemicals" and indicated that manuscripts are currently being prepared for \~lhtiiissioli. 
Again. as the manuscripts have not even been submitted, there is no evidc~icc reflecting that the 
petitioner's contl-ibutions in this area are original and of major significancc. 
IThe pctitionerl published seven papers related to modil'ying the Patty acid content 
of milk through selection of Seedstuffs for dairy cows. especially with tlic ail11 ol 
i11c1-easing the level of conjugated linolcic acid. He then puhlislietl six papcrs 
from the year and a half he worked in rccarch group studying the 
mernhrane signaling of Vitamin D and its influence on pliospliatc atid calci~~lli 
uptake. T'his is an area of importauce to the US population in countc~lctin~ tlic 
As indicated above, the reconimendation letters reflect that the petitioner ha\ madc original 
co~itributions based on his research. However, the letters fail to indicate that his contrihntiolls 
are of tirt!ior .si~trrfi'~c~~~~.~ in the field. Moreover, a petitioner cannot file n pctitiot~ ullrlcl [hi\ 
classificatioli based on the expectation of future eligibility. Givcli the tlescriptioli\ in terlii\ ol 
future applicability and determinations that may occur at a later date. it :1111>e:1rs tli;~t tlic 
petitioner's research. while original, is still ongoing and that the finding\ lie tins 111;ide arc not 
ct~rrcnrly being irnplenic~ited in his field. Again, while we acknowledge the origin:~lity of the 
petitioner's findings, the letters do not indicate that anyone is currently applying tlic petitioner'\ 
research findings, so as to establish that these findings have already i~npc~ctcd the field ill a 
significant rnanner. Accorditigly, while we do not dispute the origi11;llity of thc petiti~lier'\ 
~rcsearcti and findings, as well as the fact that the field has taken some noticc of his work. 1111. 
actual present itnpact of the petitioner's work has not beell cst;iblishetl. Rather. ihc petitioncr's 
relerenccs appear to speculate about how the petitioner's findings niay allect the ficltl at so111c 
point in the future. Eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. $$ 103.2(h)( I ). 
(12): Mottcjr i!f'Ktrri,yhoX, 14 l&N Dec. at 49. A petition cannot be approved ot a lutu~~ date after 
the petitiolicr becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Motrer of'lalrirrrri. 22 l&N Dec. at 175. 
That tlccisioll f~urther provides, citing Mutter of Bnrdouille, I8 I&N Dec. ai I 14. tlii~t we c:~titioi 
"consider facts that come into being only subsequent to the filing of ;I petition." Irl. at 176. 
Many of the letter\ proffered do in fact discuss far more pers~lasively the Suture pron~ise of the 
l~ctitioner's I-csearch and the impact that may result from his work. rather 1h311 how his 11c1st 
rcsearcli ;III-eadp qualifies as a contribution of major significance in the ficld. A petitioncr canriot 
file a petition under this classification based on the expectation ol futwc clifil>ili~>. Ilic 
L~ssertion that the petitioner's research results are likely to he influcnliirl is ~ioi atlequatc to 
ctablisli that his fi~itlings are already recognized as major contributions ill tlic licltl. Uliilc the 
experts praise the petitioncr's research and work as both novel and of greal potciltinl i~itcre\t. tlic 
fact remains 111;1t any measurable impact that results fro111 the petitioncr's re\earcli will likel! 
occur in the future 
While those familiar with his work generally describe it as "important." "~alucihlc." and 
"significant." there is insufficient documentary evidence tlemonstrating that ihe petitioner's work 
is of major sigllificance. This regulatory criterion not only requires the petitioner to make 
original colitributions, the regulatory criterion also requires those co1itrihution\ to be ~if~iil.ic:ilit. 
We arc not pers~ladcd by vague, solicited letters that simply repeat the regulatory lalig~iage hi11 
do not explain how the petitioner's contributions have already influc~icctl the lieltl. Merely 
repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the petiiio~ier's hurtlcn of 
1x001.4 'fhc lack oS supporting evidence gives the AAO 110 hasis to gauge the sig~iificancc of the 
petitioner's prescr~t colitributions. 
USCIS may. ill its tliscrction, use as advisory opinion slatelnents s~tblnittccl ;IS expert testimony. 
Sce Mt1trc.r (!/'C'rrrorr Irrrerrztriionul, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Commr. 1988). Ilo\\ever. USCIS is 
~~ltilnatcly responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien'\ cligihility for the 
I:c,dhi Rro, ('11.. Lid I. Sa~'ii. 724 F. Supp. 1103. I108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989). n/r!/. 905 I: 1~1 41 12~1 ('ir~ I<)~III: .lt,vr 
,2.~s~,r.i~iic.v. /tic. I.. ~Meissiirt. 1997 W1. 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). 
Page 16 
henefit sought. IcI The sub~nission of letters of support from the petitioner‘\ persolla1 corltacr is 
not presurnptike evidence of eligibility: USCIS may evaluate the content ol tho\e lcttcrh a\ lo 
whether they suppol-I the alien's eligibility. Srr id. at 795; scJe til.so Mrir/cr rtf' \/-ti-. 24 l&N Dcc. 
500. n.2 (BIA 2008). Thus, the content of the writers' statements and how they hcc~~me aware 01' 
the petitioner's reputation are important considerations. Even wlie~i \brittei~ 11)' ii~tlepe~iilc~lt 
experts. letters solicited by an alien in support of an immigration petition are ol lc\\ \\ciglit tlian 
preexisting. illdependent evidence of original contrihutious of major sipilica~icc. 
Finally. the petitioner claimed eligibility based on a letter. dated May 2004. Ir.o~ii - - who indicated that the petitioner's biography \\a\ \clcctecl ..for 
il~clusion in the forthcorning 2010 Edition of 111 atlilition. tile 
~~e~itiorler sub~iiitted a11 eniail, dated October 22, ;~tc(l 111:lt tllc .,II~\\ 
2010 cdition ofin America has just been published." The petitio~lcr'\ \elcctio~l anti 
inclusion occurred after the filing of the petition. Eligibility must he csrahlirllctl ;I( the ti~ne ol' 
filing. 8 C.F.K. %$ 103.2(b)(l), (12); Mtltter of Kcitigbtrk, 14 I&N Dec. at 44. 4 pctition cannot 
he approved at a f'ut~lre date aiier the petitioner becomes eligible under a new 5c1 ol tilct\. 1!4t1ric,r 
c!/'lairiirrri. 22 1&N Dcc. at 175. That decision further provides, citing M(irrcr o/'Wrir~/~~itil/r. I8 
l&N Dec. at 114. that we cannot "consider facts that come into being only \uh\equcnt to the 
filing ol a petition." Id. at 176. Although the letter indicates that the petitio11i.r wab sclcctetl 
heca~lse ol hi\ "outstanding achievements," the letter fails to indicate what were tlic "out\ra~iili~i~ 
achieven~e~irs" of the petitioner and if those "outstanding achicvementh" arc ol 111;1;or 
\ignifica~icc in the lieltl. 
We rnust prcsurne that the phrase "major sig~lificance" is not superfluouh ;11it1. t1111\. tIi;~t it II;I\ 
some meaning. Without additional, specific evidence showing that the pelitiolier'\ work Iia\ 
been u~i~~sually influenlial, or has otherwise risen to the level of colltribulion\ of iii;11or 
\igr~ifrca~lce. cve cannor conclude that he mccts this criter~on. 
Accortlingly. the petitioner failed to estahlish that he meets this criterion. 
i<i,ideiic.e r?/'r/ie rilier~ 's ciirtlior.s/~ip ~f'.sc.holtir/y trrlic-lrs iir tlie,fi~~li/, iii /~n~/<,\.\iori(ii 
or ~iic!jor trtltle /~ithlic~c~tiorzs or other mujor meditr. 
In the tlirector's decision, although he foutld that the petitioner published articlcs ill scienlilic 
,journals, he Sound that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for this criterion as the 
petitioner's work did not garner any "national or international attention. lor cxaml~le by heills 
widely cited by independent researchers." The plaiu language of the I-egulatio~i ;II 8 C.F.R. 
3 204.5(h)(3)(vi) recluires "Ic]vidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly a~.ticles ill thc field. 
in professional or major trade publications or other major inedia." Pursuant to ti(i;ririciii. 546 
F.3d at 1 122. thc petitioner submitted sufficient docurnentation establishing that llc meet\ the plai~i 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204,5(h)(3)(iv). Therefore. we withdraw ~hc l'intlili~s ofthc 
tlircctol- Ibr this criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner established that he meets the plain language of the rc$~iiatio~l lor this 
criterion. 
E~,ide~rc.c, tlrtrt tlir crlinr lztrs perfi)rmed in u letrdiirg or c.ritic.cil rolr,fi)r or,<,ruii;ri/ioii.r 
or ~~.vrcrhli.shn~crrr.s rhnr have u ditringuished rel7rrtcrtio1l. 
At the time of the original filing of the petition, counsel based his clai~ii of the pctitioncr's 
eligihility lor this criterion on counsel's exhibit list. Specifically, counsel rcl'ercnced 
reconinlendation letters from - as well as all cliinil fro111 = 
and a certificate acknowledging the petitioner's attendance at the - 
In I-espo~~sc to rhe djrcctor's rcqne\l 
for additional cviderrcc, counsel failed to address the petitioner's eligihility for this critcrio~~. 
In Prrc~. co~~nscl only addressed the awards criterion pursuatit to thc ~C$LI~;I~~OII at S C.I:.K. 
204,5(11)(3)(i), the judging criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 2045(11)(3)(i\ I. 
the original contributions criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 3-04.5(11)(3)(v). ;i~lel 
the scholarly articles criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
111 the tlirector's decision, he simply listed several recommendation letters ;md SOLIII~ I~I;II tlie 
reconi~iiet~datiotr letters "failed to sufficiently show that [the petitioner has[ risen to the top ol' 
[ his1 fieltl ol'entlcavor." On appeal, the petitioner argues that at the time of the orisitial Sili112 01' 
the pctitioli, he only claimed eligibility for the four criteria addressed in coii~~sel'\ rcslio~irc 10 tIlC 
c1irecto1-'s request for additional evidence. Moreover, on appeal. the pc~ilioticr II~~I~ICI- C~;IIIIICC~ 
eli~ihility for this criterion, nor did he did contest the decision of the director or oll.er aclditional 
arguments. As the petitioner is not making a clairn of eligibility for this critcrio~l. \vc \\ill not 
Surthcr disc~~ss this criterion on appeal and consider this issue ro he aba~ltloncd. .SCC, .5"~/11il1~c~~lti I,. 
U.S. AII 'y Gcrr.. 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (1 lth Cir.2005). 
Accordingly. the petitioner failed to establish that he meets this criterion 
II. Final Merits I)eterminntioil 
111 i~ccordance with the Kci:trrirrti opinion, we must next conduct a fin:iI mcl-its eletcrn~i~iatioii tlint 
considers a11 of the evidcnce in the context of whether or not the petitioner has tlc~r~o~~stranc~l: ( I ) 
a "level of expertise irldicati~rg that the individual is one of that small perccnt:ise who Iiavc risen 
to the very top of the[irl field of endeavor," 8 C.F.R. 3 204.5(h)(2); and (21 "that the alien ha\ 
sustai~ied national or international acclaim atid that his or her achic\c~iicnts have hcen 
recognized in the field of expertise." See section ?03(b)(l)(A)(i) ol the Act. 8 U.S.C. 
$ 1 153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3). See crl.vo Ktr;ctrictr~. 596 F.3cl at 1 1 15. l'lic 
petitioner cstahlishcd that he met the plain language of the regulation for two of the criteria. it1 
which at lcasr tlirce are required ~inder the regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(11)(3). 111 c;~sc. 
niany of the tlcficielicies in the documentation submitted hy the petitiolier Ii;~ve already hcct~ 
addressed in OUI- preceding discussion of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(11)(3 j. 
111 eval~tating our final merits determination, we must look at the totality of the cvitlcnce to 
coticlude the petitioner's eligibility pursuant to section 203(h)(l)(A) of the Act. In this caw. thc 
petitioner has received scholarships and fellowships, has served as a grant proposal revie\ver ant1 
rnatluscript reviewer, has published some scholarly articles, and has had some ol his work citecl 
hy othc~-s. How:evcr, the accomplishments of the petitioner fall fat- short ofe\tabli\l~i~lz that he "is 
one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of cntlc;~vor" ntltl that he 
"has sustained natiol~al or international acclaim and that his or her acllievcmcnts have hcc~i 
recognized in the field of expertise." See 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(2). section 203(h)(l)(i\)(i) oi the 
Act. 8 I1.S.C. S I l53(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3). 
Wtiile we found that the petitioner failed to establish the awards criterion ~LI~SLI~I~I 10 tlic 
rcgulatioti a1 8 C.F.R. $ 204,5(h)(3)(i), we note that the petitioner ha\ctl his cliyihility 011 a 
student poster competition and scholarships. Awards won by the petitiollcr in coti~pctition\ th:lt 
were litnited by his student status do not indicate that lie "is one of that \rn;lll 1x1-celltaze \vho 
tiavc riscn to the very top of the field of endeavor." See 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(11)(2). 'Shere is tlo 
i~idication that thc petitioner faced significant competition from throughoclt hi\ field. I-athrr tliall 
mostly limited to a few individuals in student status or other similarly limitctl compctitiot~. 
USCIS has long held that even athletes performing at the major league level do not autot11aticaIly 
meet the "extraortlinary ability" standard. Mc~ttrr of' Pric.e. 20 l&N Dcc. 953. 9-73 (Assoc. 
Commr. 1944): 56 Fed. Reg. at 60899.' Likewise, it does not follow tI1;1t n scicnti\t likc thc 
petitioner who has had success in a competition restricted by stutlcnt or null-profcssio11:11 st:itu\. 
\I10~tld ilccessarily clualily for an extraordinary ability employment-bawd itiitxliyr;~~~~ vi\a. 
lincl olhcrwise wo~~ld cc)tltrdvene the regulatory requit-ement at 8 C.F.R. 3 104.5(h)(2) th;lt this 
visa category he reserved for "that small percentage of individuals that ha~e riscn to the very top 
of their field of endeavor." 
Mot-eover, regartling Ihe petitione~.'~ schola~.ships and fellowship, acadctilic stutly is II~I ;I lieltl oi 
endeavor. hut training for a future field ol endeavor. As such. academic schol:~r~hil,\. stuclc11t 
awards. and iellowships cannot be considered pri7.e~ or awards in the petitiotlcr'\ iicltl oi 
' While ivc ;~ck~iowledge that a district court's decision is not hindins preccdclit. uc IIO~L, tha 111 .M(iii~i 01' 
K11~it7~. 1995 WL 1533 I9 at *4 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 16. 1995), the court stated: 
[Tllic pl;~i~i reading of the statute suggests that the appropriate field of comp;~riso~~ is 11o1 :I 
comp;lt-ison of Raciric's ability with that of all the hockey playet-s at ;ill levcls of pl;~): hur 
rather, Racinr's ability as a professional hockey player within the NHI.. This i~itcrprct;rtio~l 1s 
cotisiste~lt with ar least one other court in this district, Grim.rorr v. INS, No. 93 C 1353. (ND. 
Ill. Scptemher 9. 1993). and the definition of the term 8 C.F.R. 05(h)( I rllc 
discu\sioll set fot-th in the preamble at 56 Fed. Reg. 60898-99. 
Althouyh [lit. ptrsetit ccrsr arose within tlie jurisdiction of another federal judici;tl Ji\tl~cl :111cl circt~il. rllc 
coul-t's I-eason~ng indicates that USCIS' interpretation of thc rcyulat~on at 8 C.tK 104.i(li)(2) I, 
endeavor. Morcover. co~ilpetition for scholarships and fellowships is lilnited to other srl~tlelns. 
Experienced experts do not compete for scholarships or fellowships. Thus. the) cannot cstahlish 
that a petitioncr is one of the very few at the top of his held. Significantly. this ollicc ha\ heltl. iii 
a precctlcnt decision involvi~lg a lesser classification than the one sought ill this ~llattcr. tllat 
academic performance. measured by such criteria as grade point average, is not a \pecil'ic prior 
achievement that establishes the alien's ability to benefit the national interest. M(irr(v (~I'h'cit. 
YorX Srtrtc, llcp'r. ~f'Tror~,sp., 22 I&N Dee. at 219, n.6. Thus, academic pcrformancc is cerr;iillly 
not comparable to the awards criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3)(i). tlesigllctl to 
tlenlonstKltc an alielr's eligibility for this more exclusive classification. 
While we tlctcrmined that the petitioncr [net the judging criterion p~~rsu:~llt 10 the rc~ul:~tion at X 
C.F.R. $ 204.5(11)(3)(iv). an evaluatiotl of the significance of the petitioner's iudgill: expericncc 
i\ sanctioned untlcr Kci:rrric~jz, 596 F. 3d at 1121-1 1. The petitioncr tlcmo~istr;~tctl his clifiibility 
based on his service as a grant proposal reviewer for the 
thc and as an editor for t 
While the petitioncr sublilittcci 
atltlitiollal documentary evidence, the documentation either reflected that the petitioner was 
rcquestetl to serve as a reviewer without any evidence that he actually rcvicwetl. or tllcrc \\a\ 
insullicicnt information to establish that he iudged the work ol others. For cxnmple. the ~~~ ~ 
~~etitio~icr suhmittetl an email from 
SCSV~I~P ;IS a iilelllher of the editorial board of the 
HoLvever. the petitioner failed to establish that lie act~lally revic\vetl ;111y 111;11111s~ril)ts. 
Further~nore. the petitioller submitted a letter from 
petitioner "has bcen serving as a reviewer for th 
sincc. 2005."   ow ever.- 
since 2007."  gain: failed to indicate what the petitioncr rc\ic\cctl atltl hou 111:111!' 
were reviewed. Moreover, the petitioner submitted a screenshot fr 
11131 the petitioner is listed as an editorial board member ior the 
However, the document Pails to indicate if the ~ctitio~lcr jlldgc0 tl~e 
certificate rcllectill~ that the ~etitioner is an editorial board mc~libe~- ;lnd re\iewcr l'or the 
However. the ccrtil'ic;lte falls to 
reflect what the petitioner reviewed or edited and how many were revieweil or ctlitctl. l;i11;11ly. 
cou~isel submitted several self-compiled lists claiming that they reflected mni~uscripts that \vcre 
reviewed hy the petitioner. Counsel failed to provide any docunre11t;lry e\,itlcncc Irolli the 
publications supporting his assertio~ls. The unsupportetl assertions oi co~~ll\el do 1101 coll\titutc 
evitlellcc. Mcirrcjr (!fOhrrigherltr, 19 I&N Dec. at 534 n.2; Mtrrlrr ~f'L~ii~r-~~~iirr~. IC) 1"kN Dcc. at 3 
n.2; Morrrr c!f'Rrr~nire:-StrncIzez, 17 I&N Dec. at 506. 
Noncthelcss. we note that peer rcview is a routine element of the process hy \\liicll ;~rticlc\ arc 
selected lor publication in literary or scholarly journals 01- for p~-c\cntatloll ;I( literar~ 
conferences. Occasional participation in the peer rcview process tloe\ liot autoniatic;~lly 
tlenionstrate that an individual has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top ol 
his ficlti. Reviewing nianuscripts is recognized as a professional obligatio~i of prolbssors or 
rcholars who publish themselves in journals or who present their work at prok\sional conlercnces. 
Normally aJournal's editorial staff or a conference technical comlnittee will clilist the ir\sistancc 
of numerous professionals in the field who agree to rcview submitted papel.. It i\ coliinion for n 
p~~blication or technical committee to ask multiple reviewers to review ;i manuscript and to oll'cr 
, coni~ne~its. Tlie publication's cditorial staff or the technical committee 111a4 accept or rejcct ally 
reviewer's comments in determining whether to publish, present, or rcjcct s~~hliiittecl papers. 
Without evidence pre-dating the filing of the petition that scts the petitioner apart from otl~ers ill 
his field. such ah evidence that he has received and complctcd independent i-eque\l\ for revie\\ 
li-oni a substantial number of journals or conferences, or chaired a tccl~nical co~~irriirtee li~r ;I 
reputable conference, we cannot conclude that the petitioner is among that sm;~ll pel-ccntagc ~110 
has I-isen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(11)(1). 
We also determined that the petitioner met the authorship of scholarly articles criterioli purxualit 
ro tlie regulario~i a[ 8 C.F.R. 3 204.5(h)(3)(vi). A review of the docurricntary c\itlellc.e rcllccr\ 
that tlie pc~itioncr submitted 24 scholarly articles that were published at the lime ol' tlic filinz of 
the petition. However. when compared to the authorship of the petitioner's rcI'crcncc\. it ;~l?[?c;~rs 
that his rcfcrc~iccs are lar above the accomplishments of the petitioner. For eu;~litjllc: 
1. - "(P(ubli.shed more than 100 original rcsea~.ch arid rc\ic\v 
articles": 
2. - 'To-authored over 70 publicatioris including books. hook 
chapters and scientific articles": 
3. - "(P]uhlished over 220 papers in peer reviewed joul-rials": n~itl 
4. - "IPlublished over I00 scientific papers." 
Although the petitioner met the plain language of the regulation thro~~fh his co-autlior\liip ;~ntl 
authorship of scholarly articles. he has not established that the rnodcr;~tc pi~hlicatioti of \11c1i 
21-ticles demonstr-arcs a level of expertise indicating that he is among that s~n;~ll percentusc \rho 
have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(11)(1). 
As authoring scholarly articles is inhcrent to scholars, we will also evaluate a citatio~i liis~ory or 
other evidence of the impact of the petitioner's articles to determine rhe itiipact alitl rccognirioli 
his work has had on the field and whether such influence has been susrai~ied. I-or exalnplc. 
numerous indcpcndent citations for an article authored by the petitioner woultl iprovitle solid 
evidence that Ilk work has been recognized and that othcr re\earclier\ havc hcc~i inllucncctl hy 
his work. Such an analysis at the final merits deterrninatio~~ stage is aplxopri;ite INI~SII;IIII 10 
kir:trritr~r. 596 F. 3d at 1122. Or1 the otliel- hand, fcw or no citations of at1 article a~rrl~ored by the 
petitioner may indicate that his work has gone largely unnoticed by liis field. ,\s previo~i\ly 
discussed. the petitioner submitted documentary evidencc reflecting that his work har been citccl 
132 timcs with the highest article cited 27 times, and the majority of rhc [~ctitiolicr'\ article5 citecl 
less than ten tinies, including 13 articles that were cited one time. While rlie\c citario~~s 
de~llonst~-ate some interest in his published work, they are not sufficient to dc~nor~htratc that Irii 
:rrticles liavc attracted a level of intercst in his field cornmcnsurate with sustainctl ilation;~l or 
i~~tcrnatiol~al accl;~in~ at the very top of his field. 
Whilc we found that the petitioner failed to meet the original contributions criterion pursuar~t to 
the regulatio~i at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3)(v), the petitioner based his clailn oi cli~ihilitc almost 
cr~tircly 011 recorn~nentlation letters. It must he emphasized that tlic favorable opi~iiolis of expert\ 
in thc field. \vhile not without cvidentiary weight. arc not a solid hahi\ lor a \~rcc.cs\l'i~l 
extraordinary ability claim. Again, USCIS may. in its discretion. use as aclvi\ory opiniol~s 
statements sub~nittcd as expert testimony. See Mtrtter of' Coron Intert~c~rio~ltrl. IY I&N Dcc, nl 
795. However. USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the firial deterrnjrl;itior~ rc~ardir~g ;III 
alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id Thc submission of lettcrs iro~n itltlividual5. 
cspecially when thcy are colleagues of the petitioner without any prior k~lowlctlge of the 
petitioner's w:ot-k. si~pportirlg the petition is not presumptive evidencc ol eligibility: USCIS may 
evaluate thc content of those lettcrs as to whether they support the alien's clisihility. .SCW ;(I. ;I[ 
795.796: see, rrl.so Mrtrler of V-K-. 24 I&N Dcc. at 500, n.2. 
Finally. we cannot ignorc that the statute requires thc petitioner to \i~h~iiit "extel~si\c 
docu~nentation" of his sustained national or interliational acclaim. SCY, scctio~r 203(h)( 1 )(A) 01' 
tllc Act. The cornrnentary for the proposed regulations implementing section ?03(h)( 1 )(A)(i) 01 the 
Act lxovidc that the "intent ol Congress that a very high standard be set for aliens of' cxtrao~.dir~nry 
~rhility is rellectcd in this regulation by requiring the petitioncr to j)re\c~~t t~iorc exteriiivc 
clocumcntation tl~an that required" for lesser classifications. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703. 30704 (July 5. 
9 The petitioner Sailed to submit evidence demonstrating that he "is one of that \~iinll 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the field." In addition. the petitioncr has not 
tlen~orrstratctl his "carecr o( acclaimed work in the field" as cor~tc~i~pl~ltetl by ('oil?rc\\. I I.K. Ri.17. 
No. lOl-723. 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). 
'I'hc conclusion we reach by considering the evidence to meet each criterion separately is conristcnt 
with a review ol the evidence in the aggregate. Even in the aggregate. thc cvitlc~~cc docs not 
tlistinguish the petitioner as one of the small percentage who has risen to the \'e1-y top ol the ficltl of 
endeavor. The documentation submitted in support of a claim of cxtraordinary ~rhiliry must clearly 
den~onsrratc that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclairl~ n~id is onc of tl~c 
stnall percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
111. Conclusion 
Review of the I-ccord does not establish that the petitioncr has distinguishctl iii~nsclf to SIICII i111 
extent that he rnay be said to have achieved sustained national or interliatio~~al ;~ccl;ri~~~ ant1 to he 
within the srnall pel-centagc at the very top of his field. The evidence is not prr\llasi\c than nhe 
petitioner's achievements set him significantly above almost all others ill hi\ l'icltl an a natiti~lal (1s 
international lcvcl. Thcrelore, the petitioner has not established eligibility I~II~\II;III~ to xectiti~~ 
203(b)( I )(A) of thc Act, and the petition may not be approved. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the tech~lical requirements of the law may he 
denied by the AAO even if the Service Center does 11ot identify all of the gl-oullds for denial ill 
[he initial decision. Sce Spencer Etzrerpri.sr.s, Itzc. 1. Ut~ited Srtrrrs, 229 F. Supp. Zd at 1033. 
c~{/'tl. 345 F.3d at 683: see rrlso Solrrrtze v. IIOJ. 381 F.3d at 145 (noting that thc AAO co~ltluct\ 
appellate review on a rle t~o~,o basis). 
'The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each co~lsitlcrecl ;I\ all i~ltlc~~e~~clcnt 
and alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings. the burden of pro\ ing cli~ihilirq lor 
the benefit sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act. 8 U.S.C. $ 1361 
Hcl-e. that burden has not been met. 
OR: Thc appeal is dismissed.