dismissed EB-1A Case: Sciences

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
V.S. Department of Homelaud Security 
U.S. Ciiizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Oftice (AI\O) 
20 l'v1assachusetl;; Ave., N.W .. MS 2090 
Washington. DC 2052l)-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE: 
SE? 1 2 20" 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(I)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 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. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 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. 
Thank you, 
'1Perry Rhew 
Jchief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
Nebraska Service Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. 
The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A), as an 
alien of extraordinary ability in the sciences. 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)(1 )(A)(i) of the 
Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that 
an alien can establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a 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. § 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 the categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii), (v) and (vi). For the reasons discussed below, the AAO will 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. 723 101 st 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. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 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 ajudge 
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, III 
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 performed in a leading or critical role for 
organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation; 
(ix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field; or 
• 
Page 4 
(x) Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales . 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a 
petition filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F .3d 1115 (9th Cir. 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. 1 With respect to the criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised 
legitimate concerns about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, 
those concerns should have been raised in a subsequent "final merits determination." Id. at 1121-22. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the 
petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed 
to satisfy the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." Id. at 
1122 (citing to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). The court also explained the "final merits determination" as 
the corollary to this procedure: 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, USCIS determines whether the 
evidence demonstrates both a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one 
of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the [ir] field of endeavor," 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), and "that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of 
expertise." 8 C.F.R. § 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). 
!d. at 1119-20. 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then 
considered in the context of a final merits determination. In reviewing Service Center decisions, the 
AAO will apply the test set forth in Kazarian. As the AAO maintains de novo review, the AAO 
will conduct a new analysis if the director reached his or her conclusion by using a one-step analysis 
rather than the two-step analysis dictated by the Kazarian court. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. 
United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), afJ'd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); 
see also Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting that the AAO conducts 
appellate review on a de novo basis). 
1 Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary requirements 
beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Page 5 
II. Analysis 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
This petition, filed on February 6, 2009, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with 
extraordinary ability as a research scientist. The petitioner received her Ph.D. in Molecular and 
Cellular Biology and in . from the Albert Einstein of Medicine (AECOM) 
in 2006 under the direction Albert Einstein Cancer 
Center, and Professor in the Department of Developmental and Molecular Biology, AECOM. At 
the time of filing, the petitioner was working as a postdoctoral research fellow in the laboratory 
of , Department of Microbiology, Columbia University 
Medical Center. In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted 
. . that she is as a postdoctoral research fellow in the 
laboratory 0 Senior Biomedical Research Service, 
National Institute of Child Health & Human Development, National Institutes of Health. The 
petitioner has submitted documentation pertaining to the following categories of evidence under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3).2 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the alien's work in thefieldfor which classification 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. 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. 3 
The petitioner submitted copies of scientific journal articles indicating that her work has been 
cited by other researchers in their blications. For the' submitted an article 
entitled 
which cites to the petitioner and 
study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United 
States of America. Articles which cite to the petitioner's work are primarily about the authors' own 
work or recent developments in the field in general, and are not about the petitioner or even her 
work. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires that the published 
2 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the categories of evidence not discussed in this 
decision. 
3 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. 
Page 6 
material be "about the alien.,,4 The submitted citations do not discuss the petitioner's standing in 
the field or any other information so as to be considered published material about the petitioner 
as required by this criterion. Moreover, the AAO notes that the articles citing to the petitioner's 
work similarly referenced numerous other authors. 
On appeal, counsel argues that the petitioner's citation evidence includes review articles that 
comment on the petitioner's work "in one or two paragraphs" and "specifically recognize the 
significance" of her novel findings. Counsel points to a review article entitled "Nitric oxide and 
hormones in breast cancer: allies or enemies?" in which the petitioner's work . 
cited in a single sentence along with an earlier study by published in 1 
latter work with the petitioner (published in 200S) is designated as "of special interest" in the 
bibliography. Counsel also points to an article entitled "Genetic Screen for Chromosome Instability 
in Mice" in which the petitioner's work with is referenced in a single paragraph (three 
sentences) of a six -page article with 69 other citations. Even if we were to conclude that the review 
articles which only briefly reference the petitioner's work (along with numerous other researchers' 
studies) are "about" her work, which we do not, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(iii) requires 
that the published material be "about the alien" relating to her work rather than simply about the 
petitioner's work. Compare 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(i)(3)(i)(C) relating to outstanding researchers or 
professors pursuant to section 203 (b)(1 )(B) of the Act. It cannot be credibly asserted that the 
submitted articles are "about" the petitioner relating to her work. The articles citing to the 
petitioner's work are more relevant to the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(v) and will 
be addressed there. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien IS original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field 
The petitioner submitted several letters of support discussing her work. 
states: 
[The petitioner's] previous studying and training in my lab not only identified novel and 
important mechanisms involved in hormonal regulation of embryo implantation in the 
reproductive system, also prepared her very well for her future research activity. 
* * * 
In my laboratory, [the petitioner] worked on the female sex steroid hormones regulation 
of cell proliferation and differentiation in the reproductive system, specifically in 
uterus .... Using an ovariectomized mouse model treated with two sex steroid hormones 
Estradiol 17-~ (E2) and Progesterone (P4), [the petitioner] set up an excellent system to 
4 See, e.g., Accord Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at 7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8,2008) (upholding a rmding that 
articles about a show are not about the actor). 
Page 7 
mimic the physiological events during the estrous cycle and early pregnancy. Combined 
with a simple way to purify the uterine epithelial cells, [the petitioner] studied the action 
of these two steroid hormones on the luminal epithelial cells, which make the first 
physical attachment with blastocysts. These cells are quite rare in uterus, but [the 
petitioner's] work has helped to define several novel mechanisms involved in the 
hormone regulation of uterine epithelial cell proliferation and differentiation in vivo. As 
part of this study, she has shown that P4 inhibits the E2-induced P13 kinase pathway 
during the early G I phase to block uterine epithelial cell proliferation. There is much 
evidence that points to PI3 kinase IAKT pathway as a target for therapeutic prevention in 
breast and endometrial cancer. She published this part of her work as co-first author in 
Molecular Endocrinology, the best journal in the endocrinology field. Furthermore, using 
the new techniques of transcriptional profiling, [the petitioner] has been able to define 
replication licensing as another major target for the P 4 inhibition of E2-induced uterine 
epithelial cell proliferation. [The petitioner] made this research breakthrough since her 
data was the first to couple hormone action to DNA pre-replication in reproductive 
system. The results of this study finally published in prestigious journal Proceedings of 
the National Academy of Sciences. She also presented this gene profiling study at the 
Reproductive Tract Biology Gordon Research Conference in 2004. [The petitioner's] 
findings have been very well received in the whole international community. Many 
scientists around the world have cited her papers. 
[The petitioner] has done important work that no one else in the world has done, studies, 
which have resulted in significant improvement of our understanding of sex steroid 
hormones regulation in normal reproductive process and in cancer of the reproductive 
system. This is fundamental research, and absolutely necessary if we are to understand 
how coordinated actions of E2 and P 4 establish the transient receptive state for hatched 
embryo implantation as well as to provide information that could be relevant to our 
understanding of tumorigenesis, with estrogen being the primary risk factor for 
adenocarcinoma of the breast and endometrium. Particularly exciting are the novel 
mechanisms that she is uncovering in her research may have broad applicability to 
defining how P 4 is used therapeutically to inhibit the proliferation of estrogen-dependent 
endometrial cancer and to oppose estrogen action in postmenopausal women during 
hormone replacement therapy. 
With regard to comments regarding the petitioner's published and presented work, 
the regulations arate criterion regarding the authorship of scholarly articles. 8 C.F.R. . - . . 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). The AAO 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. 5 To hold 
5 Publication and presentations are not sufficient evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that they 
were of "major significance." Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009) ajJ'd in part 596 F.3d 1115 
Page 8 
otherwise would render meaningless the statutory requirement for extensive evidence or the 
regulatory requirement that a petitioner meet at least three separate criteria. Thus, there is no 
presumption that every published article or presentation is a contribution of major significance; 
rather, the petitioner must document the actual impact of her article or presentation. 
does not provide specific examples of how the results from the petitioner's published and presented 
work are being widely applied by others in the field or that they otherwise equate to original 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
University of Medicine and Dentistry of 
New Jersey School of Public Health, states: 
In her thesis study, [the petitioner] was the first to identify two novel signaling pathways 
which connect female steroid hormonal actions to uterine epithelial cell proliferation and 
differentiation. The results of her experiments point at potential crucial mechanisms 
involved in the genesis of breast and endometrial cancer. Even as a graduate student, she 
has made outstanding contribution and also received substantial attention in the field. For 
instance, her eminent work has resulted in three first-author publications in leading bio­
medical journals. There are many articles citing her work with high regards. Her work 
was also received high appraisals from independent international reputed peers when 
presented in the most prestigious international conferences, Gordon Research Conference 
on Reproductive Tract Biology 2004, CT. 
After graduation from Albert Einstein College of Medicine in 2006, [the petitioner] 
joined the Department of Microbiology at Columbia University of [sic] Medical Center 
as a Postdoctoral Research Scientist with a focus on the study of leukemia stem cells .... 
In collaboration with researchers at University of Rochester, where some of the 
pioneering work has been done on defining the tumor-initiating population in murine 
myeloid leukemia, she already successfully designed and built up an in vivo murine 
model to test the function of ZFX, a highly conserved transcriptional factor, in self­
renewal of leukemia stem cell. [The petitioner's] study will gain a better understanding of 
how most leukemia patients relapse and may ultimately provide new avenues for 
developing therapies to treat myeloid leukemia. 
comments that the petitioner's study "will gain a better understanding of how most 
........ ,_ .. ", .. patients relapse and may ultimately provide new avenues for developing therapies to 
treat myeloid leukemia." With regard to the witnesses of record, many of them discuss what 
may, might, or could one day result from the petitioner's work, rather than how her past research 
achievements already qualify as original contributions of major significance in the field. 
Eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of 
Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). A petition cannot be approved at a future 
date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of /zummi, 22 I&N 
Dec. 169, 175 (Comm'r. 1998). That decision further provides, citing Matter of Bardouille, 18 
(9th Cir. 2010). In 2010, the Kazarian court reaffinned its holding that the AAO did not abuse its discretion in fmding 
that the alien had not demonstrated contributions of major significance. 596 F.3d at 1122. 
Page 9 
I&N Dec. 114 (BIA 1981), that USCIS cannot "consider facts that come into being only 
subsequent to the filing of a petition." Id. at 176. _ does not provide specific examples of 
how the petitioner's work has already been utilized to develop successful therapies for treating 
myeloid leukemia. 
cornrrlents that the petitioner's work has been cited by other 
scientific researchers, the petitioner's appellate submission includes citation indices from ,-"vVF,J'''' 
Scholar . . . that her most cited article entitled 
been cited to an aggregate of 
38 times. There is no evidence showing that any of the petitioner's remaining articles (such as her 
article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America) had 
been cited to more than ten times as of the petition's filing date. The petitioner has not established 
that this level of citation for her body of published work is indicative of original contributions of 
major significance in the field. The petitioner's field, like most science, is research-driven, and 
there would be little point in publishing research that did not add to the general pool of 
knowledge in the field. According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's 
contributions must be not only original but of "major significance" in the field. The phrase 
"major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, it has some meaning. Silverman v. Eastrich 
Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 51 F. 3d 28,31 (3rd Cir. 1995) quoted in APWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 
619, 626 (2nd Cir. Sep 15, 2003). To be considered a contribution of major significance in the 
field of biomedical science, it can be expected that the results would have already been 
reproduced and confirmed by other experts and applied in their work. Otherwise, it is difficult to 
gauge the impact of the petitioner's work. 
TheAAO acknowledges that the petitioner's article with _n Molecular Endocrinology is 
well cited, but notes that the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires 
original "contributions of major significance" [emphasis added] in the plural. The use of the 
plural is consistent with the statutory requirement for extensive evidence. Section 
203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act. Significantly, not all of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) are 
worded in the plural. Specifically, the regulations at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (ix) only 
require service on a single judging panel or a single high salary. When a regulatory criterion 
wishes to include the singUlar within the plural, it expressly does so as when it states at 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) that evidence of experience must be in the form of "letter(s)." Thus, the 
AAO can infer that the plural in the remaining regulatory criteria has meaning. In a different 
context, federal courts have upheld USCIS' ability to interpret significance from whether the 
singular or plural is used in a regulation. 7 Therefore, even if the petitioner were to establish that 
her and her coauthors' discovery of a novel signaling pathway that links Estradiol 17-~ and 
6 The article in Molecular Endocrinology was coauthored by the petitioner, her superviso_ and three 
others. 
7 See Maramjaya v. USCIS, Civ. Act. No. 06-2158 (RCL) at 12 (D.C. Cir. March 26, 2008); Snapnames.com Inc. v. 
Chertoff, 2006 WL 3491005 at *10 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2006) (upholding an interpretation that the regulatory 
requirement for "a" bachelor's degree or "a" foreign equivalent degree at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(2) requires a single 
degree rather than a combination of academic credentials). 
Page 10 
Progesterone action to growth factor-mediated signaling in the uterus (published in Molecular 
Endocrinology) meets the elements of this criterion, which she has not, a single qualifying 
original contribution of major significance does not meet the plain language requirements of this 
criterion. 
Columbia University Medical Center, 
In 2006, [the petitioner] joined my laboratory as a Postdoctoral Fellow to study the 
molecular mechanisms of stem cell function and cancer development. 
* * * 
In my own lab, [the petitioner] quickly became a leader in our efforts to understand the 
connection between normal stem cells and cancer. Her work builds upon our recent 
discovery of Zfx, a key regulator of stem cell function. [The petitioner] is now 
spearheading two important projects, focusing on the molecular mechanism of Zfx 
activity in stem cells and on its role in cancer development. . .. In the last year, [the 
petitioner] made incredible progress in her work, and is at the verge of major 
breakthroughs in these important lines of investigation. These studies should eventually 
lead to increased understanding of both stem cell function and cancer development, 
paving the way for better therapies needed for millions of Americans nationwide. [The 
petitioner's] extensive experience, scientific expertise and creativity, and dedication to 
research are key to the success of this project and other studies she will conduct in the 
future. 
opines that the petitioner is "at the verge of major breakthroughs" in her work at 
Columbia University Medical Center, but there is no documentary evidence showing that her 
work focusing on the molecular mechanism of Zfx activity in stem cells and its role in cancer 
development had already significantly impacted the greater field as of the date of filing so as to 
be considered a contribution of major significance. As previously discussed, eligibility must be 
established at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(I), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 
at 49. 
of Reproductive and Developmental Biology, 
Vanderbilt University Medical Center, states: 
I came to know [the petitioner] at Gordon Research Conference on Reproductive Tract 
Biology in 2004, Connecticut. As a senior Ph.D. student in _s lab, [the 
petitioner's] poster presentation attracted my attention because she first clearly 
demonstrated that two female steroid hormones estrogen (E2) and progesterone (P 4) 
elegantly regulate replication-licensing process in uterine luminal epithelium .... Using 
the latest powerful techniques of microarray analysis, [the petitioner] beautifully 
identified that all six Mini-chromosome Maintenance (MCM2-7) was rapidly down­
regulated by P4 out of more than 27,000 mouse cDNA sequences .... Through various 
molecular techniques, [the petitioner's] study further showed that P4 regulated E2-induced 
replication licensing by a number of novel mechanisms. The most significant one is that 
P4 can sequester normally nuclear MCM proteins into cytoplasm in uterine epithelium. 
This finding has ground-breaking significance since MCM proteins were believed to 
retain in nucleus in almost all previous studies. The detailed results have been published 
in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA, one of the highest ranking 
journals in biomedical field .... The novel mechanism [the petitioner] has identified will 
eventually lead to new preventive methods and more effective therapies for these cancer 
and related diseases. 
As a Ph.D. candidate, [the petitioner] has been highly productive since her thesis work 
has resulted in another two first-author papers in internationally recognized scientific 
journals, including Molecular Endocrinology and Endocrinology. 
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 from 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 scientist 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. 
Using the cutting edge technologies of large scale cDNA microarray, [the petitioner's] 
clearly 
demonstrated that components of the TLR4 pathway were dramatically up-regulated in 
the luminal epithelium, which further induced NFKB pathway activation in pre­
implantation window. [The petitioner's] discovery first suggested that the uterus is 
primed to respond to pathogens that might have been introduced into the reproductive 
tract as a result of mating, which very well explained why infectious agents are a major 
cause of early pregnancy loss. This had made a major impact on my project and also the 
whole female reproductive field . 
•••• ~mments that the petitioner's work published in Endocrinology had "a major impact" on 
his project, but he does not provide specific examples of how the petitioner's work has significantly 
impacted the field as a whole. Further, there is no documentation showing that the petitioner's 
findings in Endocrinology had been cited to more than ten times as of the petition's filing date. The 
petitioner has not established that this minimal level of citation is indicative of an original 
contribution of major significance. There is no evidence indicating that the petitioner's discovery 
reporting that the uterus is primed to respond to pathogens introduced into the reproductive tract 
Page 12 
as a result of mating is frequently cited by independent researchers or otherwise equates to an 
original contribution of major significance in the field. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a second letter from 
_stating: 
During 2009, [the petitioner] has made further progress in my lab, studying the regulation 
of stem cell function. To develop her findings towards future clinical applications, she 
has recently moved to the laboratory of , a world famous scientist at 
the National Institutes of Health. It is expected that [the petitioner's] work at the NIH 
would bring new important insights into stem cell biology, with important implications 
towards the treatment of many serious diseases including cancer. 
-,V>JLUU.'-'U',,, that the petitioner has made further progress in his laboratory, but he does 
not provide specific examples of how her research regarding the regulation of stem cell function 
has significantly influenced the field. There is no documentary evidence showing that the 
petitioner's work at Columbia University Medical Center has been frequently cited by 
independent researchers or otherwise impacted the field at the time of filing so as to be 
considered a contribution of . or significance. Moreover, the petitioner's work under the 
supervISIOn at NIH post-dates the petition's filing date. As previously 
discussed, eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); 
Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
The petitioner's response also included a letter 
I offered [the petitioner] a post-doctoral fellowship at the National Institute for Child 
Health and Human Development (NICHD), a unit of the National Institutes of Health in 
Bethesda, MD. 
* * * 
Upon completing her Ph.D., [the petitioner] joined the laboratory of at 
Columbia University Medical School to expand her scientific experience into the area of 
stem cell research. . .. [The petitioner] studied the role of Zfx, a protein that acts as a 
major regulator of stem cell proliferation. 
By combining two of the most current technologies in the field of molecular biology 
(tandem-affinity protein purification and mass spectrometry based polypeptide 
sequencing), [the petitioner] identified NSD 1, a histone methyltransferase, as the 
interaction partner of Zfx in stem cells. . .. U sing a genetic engineered mouse model, 
[the petitioner] discovered that removal of the Zfx gene specifically damages the self­
renewing ability of cancer stem cells, and thereby significantly delays the progression of 
myeloid leukemia. Thus, her research at the Columbia University Medical School has 
resulted in a critical and novel insight into the cause of this human disease, and has 
identified two new targets for development of therapies in the treatment of AML. 
Page 13 
[The petitioner] is now extending that research in my laboratory at the NIH where she 
will undertake a leadership role in our program to develop novel cancer therapies based 
on the interruption of specific pathways that suppress aberrant DNA replication events 
during cell division. [The petitioner] will apply her unique expertise in the analysis of 
stem cell protein-protein interactions to determine whether or not our recent discovery 
that suppression of geminin activity in cultured cells can selectively kill cancer cells 
without affecting normal cells is applicable to preventing metastasis in whole animals. 
There is no evidence showing the petitioner's discovery that removal of the Zfx gene damages the 
self-renewing ability of cancer stem cells is frequently cited by independent researchers or 
otherwise equates to an original contribution of major significance in the field. Further,. 
does not provide examples of how the petitioner's specific findings have actually been 
utilized to develop successful therapies for the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia. • 
comments on the petitioner's research in his laboratory, but her work there post­
dates the petition's February 6, 2009 filing date. As previously discussed, eligibility must be 
established at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 
at 49. Accordingly, the AAO will not consider the petitioner's work at NIH in this proceeding. 
The opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and have been considered above. 
USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. 
See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. at 795. 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; see also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 
(BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). 
Thus, the content of the experts' 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 documentary evidence showing that the 
petitioner's work equates to original contributions of major significance in her field, the AAO 
cannot conclude that she 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 her authorship of nine scholarly articles and a conference 
presentation and, thus, has submitted qualifying evidence pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Accordingly, the petitioner has established that she meets this criterion. 
Page 14 
Summary 
In this case, the AAO concurs with the director's determination that the petitioner has failed to 
demonstrate her receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that she 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). 
Nevertheless, the AAO will review the evidence in the aggregate as part of its final merits 
determination. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
In accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the AAO will 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. § 204.5(h)(2); and (2) "that the alien has 
sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in 
the field of expertise." Section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). See also Kazarian, 
596 F.3d at 1119-1120. In the present matter, many of the deficiencies in the documentation 
submitted by the petitioner have already been addressed in the preceding discussion of the 
regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii) and (v). 
With regard to the documentation submitted for the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(iii), 
the petitioner submitted copies of scientific articles citing to her work. As previously discussed, 
the submitted articles are primarily about the authors' own work or recent trends in the field, and 
are not about the petitioner or even her work. The petitioner has not established that the articles 
citing to her work are indicative of or consistent with sustained national acclaim or a level of 
expertise indicating that she is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of her 
field. 
Regarding the petitioner's original research findings discussed under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), as 
stated above, they do not appear to rise to the level of contributions of "major significance" in the 
field. Demonstrating that the petitioner's work was "original" in that it did not merely duplicate 
prior research is not useful in setting the petitioner apart through a "career of acclaimed work." 
H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). That page (59) also says that "an alien must (1) 
demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim in the sciences, arts, education, business or 
athletics (as shown through extensive documentation) ... " Research work that is unoriginal would 
be unlikely to secure the petitioner a master's degree, let alone classification as a medical researcher 
of extraordinary ability. To argue that all original research is, by definition, "extraordinary" is to 
weaken that adjective beyond any useful meaning, and to presume that most research is 
"unoriginal. " 
While the petitioner has published scholarly articles with her superiors, the Department of Labor's 
Occupational Outlook Handbook (DOH), 2010-11 Edition, (accessed at www.bls.gov/oco on 
August 25, 2011 and incorporated into the record of proceedings), provides information about the 
Page 15 
nature of employment as a postsecondary teacher (professor) and the requirements for such a 
position. See http://www.bls.gov/oco/pdf/ocos066.pdf. The handbook expressly states that faculty 
members are pressured to perform research and publish their work and that the professor's 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 Further, the OOH states 
specifically with respect to the biological sciences that a "solid record of published research is 
essential in obtaining a permanent position performing basic research, especially for those seeking a 
permanent college or university faculty position." See http://www.bls.gov/oco/pdflocos047.pdf 
This information reveals that original published research, whether arising from research at a 
university or private employer, does not set the researcher apart from faculty in that researcher's 
field. 
Moreover, the petitioner's citation history is a relevant consideration as to whether the evidence is 
indicative of the petitioner's recognition beyond her own circle of collaborators. See Kazarian, 
596 F. 3d at 1122. As previously discussed, the documentation submitted by the petitioner 
indicates that one of her articles (published in Molecular Endocrinology) has been well cited as 
of the petition's filing date. However, there is no evidence showing that any of the petitioner's 
remaining articles had been cited to more than ten times as ofthe petition's filing date. The level of 
citation to the petitioner's body of published work at the time of filing is not sufficient to 
demonstrate that her articles have attracted a level of interest in the 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 relies primarily on 
her publication of nine scholarly articles with her superiors, a conference presentation with .. 
••• citation evidence indicating that one of her articles published in 2005 has been well cited, 
and the praise of her references. The AAO notes that the petitioner's role at AECOM was that of 
a student. Moreover, the petitioner's postdoctoral fellowships at Columbia University Medical 
Center and the NICHD are designed to provide specialized research experience and training in 
her field of endeavor. 8 The AAO further notes that many of the s references' credentials 
are far more impressive than those of the petitioner. For example, states: 
I served as a Professor at Harvard Medical School (1973-1986), a Full Member of the 
Roche Institute of Molecular Biology (1986-1995), Adjunct Professor at Columbia 
University during the same period, and most recently as Chief of a research section in the 
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development at the National Institutes of 
Health (1996-present). I have published over 180 scientific reports and reviews, and I 
have edited 8 books, the vast majority of which are in the fields of genome duplication 
and animal development. I also have mentored over 60 post-doctoral scientists and Ph.D. 
students, served on several editorial boards for several international journals, grant 
8 "Biological scientists with a Ph.D. often take temporary postdoctoral research positions that provide specialized 
research experience." See http://www.bls.gov/oco/pdtfocos047.pdf, accessed on August 25,2011, copy incorporated 
into the record of proceedings. 
review committees including NIH, NSF and American Cancer Society, and received 
several awards, among them the Humboldt fellowship. 
states: 
I trained at Harvard Medical School with one of the founding fathers 
of molecular genetics and a laureate of most prestigious awards including the National 
Medal of Science. In 2003, I have been appointed a tenure-track Assistant Professor of 
Microbiology at Columbia University Medical Center. The work in my lab is supported 
by major national agencies including the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases, the National Heart, Blood and Lung Institute, and American Cancer Society .... 
My lab's recent discovery of a key stem cell regulator was published as a Featured 
Article by the most prestigious biology journal, Cell, and reported by major media outlets 
including Reuters and CNN. 
_states: 
I currently hold the position of Associate Professor in Reproductive and Developmental 
Biology Division at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. . .. As one of the leading 
scientists in this field, I have published over 100 peer reviewed articles in highly reputed 
journals such as Science; Cell; Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA; 
Molecular Endocrinology and Endocrinology just to give you few. . .. I am frequently 
invited to give seminars both in the U.S. and internationally. In addition, I have served as 
a reviewer for several NIH grants and over twenty internationally recognized scientific 
journals including Molecular Endocrinology, Endocrinology and American Journal of 
Obstetrics and Gynecology. 
states: 
. .. I have served as grant reviewer for a number of major 
Korean funding agencies including KNIH, Korean National Science Foundation (NSF) 
and Korean Research Foundation. As a leading scientist, I also served as editorial board 
member for many journals such as Faseb Journal and Journal of Life Science. 
_states: 
I am currently a Deputy Director of the . .. Before this I 
was Associate Director for Laboratory Research at this center beginning in 1993. I 
played a key role in designing the evolving organization of the cancer Center and the 
implementation of new research program initiatives. I also brought to this position my 
perspective and experience as Director of the Reproductive Biology and Women's Health 
Center. . .. I have been continuously funded by National Institute of Health and I have 
published about 180 professional articles. I have served as grant reviewer for a number of 
, \ 
Page 17 
prestigious U.S. and international funding agencies including NIH, NCI and Medical 
Research Council in Canada, Welcome Foundation and Medical Research Council in 
Britain. I also served as editorial board member for many top journals, such as 
Molecular Oncology and International Journal a/Cancer. 
While the petitioner need not demonstrate that there is no one more accomplished than herself to 
qualifY for the classification sought, it appears that the very top of her field of endeavor is above the 
level she has attained. In this case, the petitioner has not established that her achievements at the 
time of filing were commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim as a research 
scientist, or being among that small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. 
III. Conclusion 
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 does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished herself to such an 
extent that she may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim and to be 
within the small percentage at the very top of her field. The evidence is not persuasive that the 
petitioner's achievements set her significantly above almost all others in her 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.