dismissed EB-1A Case: Sciences

i.dcnt;.fylng data ddet(:d to 
prevent clearly unwarT2.nt cn 
l' ~'r"rhn 01: "er~""'" . ,.," "-y' .lJ."U~).(..Ju_ .'1 P "'--.'-'.'~- ~", .... ,;,.",,-'.:.. 
PUBLIC COpy 
DATE: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
MAY 14 2012 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.s. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave .. nw" MS 20t)() 
Washing:toll, DC 20529-20 1)0 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(1)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals 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 AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen 
with the field office or service center that originally decided your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of 
Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(1)(i) requires any motion to be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to 
reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
..... " 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
Texas Service Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The 
appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an 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 asserts that that petitioner has "received sustained international acclaim and 
recognition for her achievements" and that the submitted documentation demonstrates she is one of 
the small percentage who have risen to the very top of her field. For the reasons discussed below, 
the AAO will uphold the director's determination that the petitioner has not established her 
eligibility for the exclusive classification sought. 
Specifically, the AAO acknowledges the director's conclusion that when the submitted evidence is 
simply counted, the petitioner has submitted qualifying evidence that meets the plain language of 
three of the categories of evidence as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). These 
criteria are judging the work of others, original contributions of major significance, and authorship 
of scholarly articles pursuant to 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv), (v), and (vi). As explained in the 
AAO's final merits determination, however, much of the evidence that technically qualifies under 
some of those criteria reflect~ routine duties or accomplishments in the field that do not compare 
with the accomplishments of the most experienced and renowned members of the field.l Thus, such 
evidence is not consistent with a finding that the petitioner enjoys sustained national or international 
acclaim at the very top of the field. As will be discussed further in the final merits determination, 
while the petitioner notes the caliber of the references who support the petition, their 
accomplishments, appointments as a director or professor, editorial positions, and publication 
records only reinforce the AAO's conclusion that the top of the petitioner's field is far higher than 
the level she has achieved. 
I The legal authority [or this two-step analysis will be discussed at length below. 
Page 3 
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. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USerS) and legacy lmmigration 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 101s' 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 a judge 
of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which 
classification is sought; 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field; 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles In the field, In 
professional or major trade publications or other major media; 
(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases; 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for 
organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation; 
(ix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field; or 
(x) Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a 
petition filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 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.2 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, uscrs 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," 
2 Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary requirements 
beyond those sci 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 
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)(1 )(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 this matter, the AAO will apply the 
two-step analysis dictated by the Kazarian court. 
II. Analysis 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
This petition, filed on May 23, 2010, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with 
ability as a research scientist. The petitioner earned her Ph.D. in Genetics (2006) 
under the niversity, China. At the 
time of filing, the petitioner was working as a postdoctoral associate in the Department of 
Epidemiology and Public Health (DEPH) at Yale University School of Medicine (YUSM) under 
the . of ............................ .. 
The petitioner has submitted documentation pertaining to the following 
V>UCH"" under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)? 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
In a letter accompanying the petition, counsel asserts that the petitioner received a "Li 
Foundation Postdoctoral Fellowship," two "third grade Student Award Scholarships" from 
Fudan University, a "Shanghai Outstanding Graduate Student" award, and a "first grade Student 
Award Scholarship" from Shanghai University, but the petitioner failed to submit documentary 
evidence of her receipt of the awards. The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute 
evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BrA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 
I&N Dec. 1,3 n.2 (BrA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BrA 1980). 
A petition must be filed with any initial evidence required by the regulation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(1). The nonexistence or other unavailability of primary evidence creates a 
presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2)(i). Further, the petitioner did not submit 
evidence of the national or international recognition of her awards. The plain language of the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) specifically requires that the petitioner's awards be nationally 
or internationally recognized in the field of endeavor and it is her burden to establish every element 
of this criterion. In this case, there is no documentary evidence demonstrating that the petitioner's 
~ The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the categories of evidence not discussed in this 
decision. 
awards were recognized beyond the presenting organizations and therefore commensurate with 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field. 
The director requested further evidence pertaining to this regulatory criterion, but the petitioner's 
response to the director's request for evidence (RFE) did not address the deficiencies identitied 
by the director. Therefore, the director found that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate her 
receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of 
endeavor. On appeal, the petitioner does not contest the director's findings for this criterion or 
offer additional arguments. The AAO, therefore, considers this issue to be abandoned. 
Sepulveda v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2005); Hristov v. Roark, No. 
09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *1, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (the court found the 
plaintiff's claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO). 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that she meets this regulatory criterion. 
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. 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, a petitioner must 
show that the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for 
admission to membership. Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a 
given field, minimum education or experience, standardized test scores, grade point average, 
recommendations by colleagues or current members, or payment of dues, do not satisfy this 
criterion as such requirements do not constitute outstanding achievements. Further, the overall 
prestige of a given association is not determinative; the issue here is membership requirements 
rather than the association's overall reputation. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of her membership in the American Society for Microbiology 
(ASM) and the American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene (ASTMH), but she failed to 
submit documentary evidence (such as membership bylaws or rules of admission) showing that 
they require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or 
international experts in her field. 
The petitioner submitted e-mail correspondence dated January 26, 2010 thanking the petitioner for 
her "interest in membership to Sigma Xi" through the society's Quinnipiac chapter. The e-mail 
correspondence requests that the petitioner provide her curriculum vitae, birth date, mailing address, 
telephone number, and the name of the principal investigator in her laboratory. There is no 
evidence documenting the petitioner's actual admission to membership in Sigma Xi. Going on 
record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the 
burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) 
(citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). A 
petition must be filed with any initial evidence required by the regulation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(I). The nonexistence or other unavailability of primary evidence creates a 
presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2)(i). The submitted materials about Sigma Xi 
Page 7 
indicate that the society invites to full membership those who have "shown noteworthy achievement 
as an original investigator in a field of pure or applied science." A noteworthy achievement is not 
necessaril y an outstanding achievement. The record reveals that Sigma Xi does not take a 
particularl y strict view of noteworthy achievements. According to the material submitted by the 
petitioner, these achievements "must be evidenced by publication as a first author on two articles 
published in a refereed journal, patents, written reports or a thesis or dissertation." The AAO cannot 
conclude that primary authorship of two papers in an occupation where a "solid record of published 
research is essential to get a permanent position in basic research" constitutes outstanding 
achievements.
4 
The director found that the petitioner failed to submit documentary evidence of her membership in 
associations requiring outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in the field. On appeal, the petitioner does not contest the 
director's findings for this criterion or offer additional arguments. The AAO, therefore, 
considers this issue to be abandoned. Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1228 n.2; Hristov, 2011 WL 
4711885, at *9. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that she meets this regulatory 
criterion. 
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, dnte, and author of the material, and 
any necessary translation. 
The AAO withdraws the director's finding that the petitioner meets this regulatory criterion. 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.5 
.T.hie ••• i~isu~bjmjitted an August 2009 article by 
website 
Host Protein May Provide 
in passing as a member of 
The article, which only briefly mentions the petitioner 
research team, is not about the petitioner. The plain 
4 With respect to Microbiologists, the Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2012-13 Edition, 
states: "Postdoctoral positions typically offer the opportunity to publish research findings. A solid record of 
published research is essential to get a permanent position in basic research, especially a permanent faculty position 
in a college or university." See http://www.bls.gov/oohllifc::nhysical-and-social-scicncc/microbiologists.htm#tab-4. 
accessed on May 2, 2012, copy incorporated into the record of proceedings. 
5 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. 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires that the published material be 
"about the alien." See, e.g., Accord Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at * 1,*7 (D. 
Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding a finding that articles about a show are not about the actor). Further, 
there is no documentary evidence (such as online readership information) showing that the Yale 
School of Public Health's website qualifies as a form of major media. The AAO is not persuaded 
that a news item written by the Director of Communications at the petitioner's research 
institution (which is not the result of independent media reportage) meets the elements of this 
regulatory criterion. 
The petitioner submitted two "Faculty Comments" posted on the website of 'OF 
Biology" relating to the petitioner and _ article entitled 
and tsetse peptidoglycan recognition protein (PGRP-LB) influence 
trypanosome transmission." The posted comments are not published material about the 
petitioner as required by the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Instead, 
they are post-publication peer review evaluations of the article she coauthored with J 
According to the plain language of this regulatory criterion, the published material must be "about 
the alien ... relating to the alien's work." Compare 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(C), which requires 
evidence "about the alien's work." It cannot be credibly asserted that the submitted Faculty of 1000 
comments are "about" the petitioner. The petitioner also submitted information about Faculty of 
1000 from Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia. With regard to information from Wikipedia, there 
are no assurances about the reliability of the content from this open, user-edited internet site.
fi 
See Lamilem Badasa v. Michael Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909 (8th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, the AAO 
will not assign weight to information for which Wikipedia is the source. The submitted 
documentation also included information about Faculty of 1000 originating from its own 
website. The self-serving nature of this material is not sufficient to demonstrate that the Faculty of 
1000 Biology website is a form of major media. USCIS need not rely on self-promotional 
material. See Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06 5105 SJO (C. D. CA July 6, 2007) aff'd 317 Fed. Appx. 
680 (9th Cir. 20(9) (concluding that the AAO did not have to rely on self-serving assertions on the 
cover of a magazine as to the magazine's status as major media). There is no documentary 
evidence showing that the Faculty of 1000 Biology website qualifies as a form of major media. 
6 Online content from Wikipedia is subject to the following general disclaimer: 
WIKIPEDlA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY. Wikipedia is an online open-content 
collaborative encyclopedia, that is, a voluntary association of individuals and groups working to develop a 
common resource of human knowledge. The structure of the project allows anyone with an Internet 
connection to alter its content. Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by 
people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information .... 
Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here. The content of any given 
article may recently have been changed, vandalized or altered by someone whose opinion does not 
correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields. 
See http:Ucn.wikipeJia.org:\viki/Wikipedia:Gcncral disclaimer, accessed on May 2, 2012, copy incorporated into 
the record of proceeding. 
Page 9 
The submitted citation evidence indicating that articles she coauthored with her 
have been cited to by other researchers in their publications. 
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. As 
previously discussed, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires that 
the published material be "about the alien." It cannot be credibly asserted that the submitted articles 
are "about" the petitioner. The research articles citing to the petitioner's work are more relevant to 
the regulatory criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) and will be addressed there. 
The petitioner submitted a Pebruary 2010 article printed from NewsRx.com entitled_ 
from [the petitioner] and colleagues yield new information about life sciences," but the author of 
the article was not specifically identified as required by the plain language of the regulation at 
8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). The petitioner also submitted a brochure for NewsRx providing 
information about the company's first 25 years of existence, but the self-serving nature of the 
company brochure is not sufficient to demonstrate that NewsRx.com qualifies as a form of major 
media. As previously discussed, USCIS need not rely on self-promotional material. See Braga v. 
Poulos, No. CV 06 5105 SJO (C. D. CA July 6, 2007) aff'd 317 Ped. Appx. 680 (9th Cir. 2009). 
There is no evidence showing the online readership for NewsRx.com relative to other websites to 
demonstrate that the submitted article was in a form of major media. Purthermore, even if the 
petitioner were to submit supporting documentary evidence showing that the article from 
NewsRx.com meets the elements of this criterion, which she has not, section 203(b)(I)(A)(i) of 
the Act requires the submission of extensive evidence. Consistent with that statutory requirement, 
the plain language of the regulation at 8 c.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires material about the alien in 
"professional or major trade publications or other major media" in the plural. Significantly, not all 
of the criteria at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3) are worded in the plural. Specifically, the regulations at 
8 C.P.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (ix) only require service on a single judging panel or a single high 
salary. 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. 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 
* 1 0 (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.P.R. § 204.5(1)(2) requires a single 
degree rather than a combination of academic credentials). Therefore, published material about 
the petitioner limited to only one major medium does not meet the plain language requirements 
of this regulatory criterion. 
In light of the above, the petItIOner has not established that she meets the plain language 
requirements of this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of 
the work of others in the same or an allied field of specification for which 
classification is sought. 
The petitioner submitted a Pebruary 1, 2010 e-mail me:,salle 
Immunology requesting that the petitioner 
Pagc 10 
_ In response to the director's RFE, the petitioner submitted an April 30, 2010 e-mail 
message thanking the petitioner for completing her review of the preceding manuscript. 
The petitioner's response to the director's RFE included an October 8, 2010 letter from the Editor­
in-Chief of Immunobiology stating that the petitioner "was invited to be a peer-reviewer" for the 
journal. The petitioner also submitted a November 8, 2010 letter from the Editor-in-Chief of 
Journal of Insect Science stating that he "invited her to review manuscripts for the journal." The 
petitioner's response also included a September 11,2010 letter from the Science Navigation Group 
rilleUliL v of 1000 . . was at the request of 
as~ 
Member to assist her in evaluating the scientitic literature for Faculty of 1000 __ 
The limited information provided in the preceding letters does not identify the specific articles 
reviewed by the petitioner, the dates she completed her manuscript reviews, or the names of the 
authors. Merely submitting letters claiming that the petitioner was invited to review articles 
without specifying the work she actually judged is insufficient to establish eligibility for this 
regulatory criterion. As previously discussed, going on record without supporting documentary 
evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. 
Matter ofSoffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. Moreover, if testimonial evidence lacks specificity, detail, 
or credibility, there is a greater need for the petitioner to submit corroborative evidence. Matter 
of Y-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). In this instance, there is no documentary evidence 
demonstrating that the petitioner had reviewed articles for Immunobiology, Journal of Insect 
Science, or Faculty of 1000 at the time of filing the petition on May 23, 2010. Eligibility must be 
must 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). Accordingly, the AAO will not consider articles reviewed by 
the petitioner after May 23, 2010 in this proceeding. 
The submitted documentation demonstrates that the petitioner peer-reviewed a single manuscript for 
Molecular Immunology as of the petition's filing date. This documentation minimally satisfies the 
plain language requirements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field. 
The director determined that the petitioner had submitted qualifying evidence of original 
contributions of major significance in her field. The record contains several reference letters 
attesting to the significance of the petitioner's work supported by numerous citations that note 
the of her research under the guidance of 
Thus, the director found that the petitioner had 'UIJllllllt:U 4'Uillllylllg evidellce 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
7 The AAO notes that the petitioner's "Associate Faculty" designation in Faculty of 1000 is less restrictive than the 
"Faculty" membership designation held b~ 
Page 11 
The petitioner has documented her co-authorship of approximately twenty journal articles with her 
superiors as of the petition's filing date 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 the plain 
language requirements of this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations 
or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner submitted letters of research at Fudan University 
and her postdoctoral research in While the petitioner has 
performed admirably on the to which she was assigned, there is 
no evidence demonstrating that her subordinate roles were leading or critical for Fudan 
University or YUSM. For example, there is no organizational chart or other evidence 
documenting where the petitioner'S positions fell within the general hierarchy of the researchers and 
professors at the universities where she worked. The AAO notes that the petitioner's role at Fudan 
University was that of a graduate student. Moreover, the petitioner's postdoctoral appointment 
at YUSM is designed to provide specialized research experience and training in her field of 
endeavor.8 The petitioner's evidence does not demonstrate how her temporary appointments 
differentiated her from the other research scientists employed by the preceding universities, let alone 
their tenured faculty and principal investigators. The documentation submitted by the petitioner 
does not establish that she was responsible for her universities' success or standing to a degree 
consistent with the meaning of "leading or critical role." Accordingly, the petitioner has not 
established that she meets the plain language requirements of this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. 
~itioner submitted a letter from •••••••••••••••• 
_ stating that the petitioner's "current salary is $45,960." The plain language of this 
regulatory criterion requires the petitioner to submit evidence of a "high salary ... in relation to 
others in the field." The petitioner offers no basis for comparison showing that her salary was 
significantly high in relation to other research scientists in her field. Accordingly, the petitioner has 
not established that she meets the plain language requirements of this regulatory criterion. 
, With respect to Microbiologists, the Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2012·13 Edition, 
states: "Many microbiology Ph.D. holders begin their careers in a temporary postdoctoral research position, whieh 
typically lasts 2 to 3 years. During their postdoctoral appointment, they work with experienced scientists as they 
continue to learn about their specialties or develop a broader understanding of related areas of research," See 
htln:!/www.hls.gov/ooh/life-physical-and-social-scicncc/microbiologists.htm#tab-4. accessed on May 2, 2012, copy 
incorporated into the record of proceedings. 
Page 12 
Summary 
In light of the above, the petitioner has submitted evidence that meets the plain language of the 
specific regulations at 8 C.P.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) - (vi) and therefore qualifies under three of the 
categories of evidence that must be satisfied to establish the minimum eligibility requirements 
necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
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.P.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)(I)(A) of the Act; 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3). See also Kazarian, 596 P.3d at 1119-20. In the 
present matter, many of the deficiencies in the documentation submitted by the petitioner have 
already been addressed in the AAO's preceding discussion of the categories of evidence at 
8 C.P.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (iv), (viii) and (ix). 
In regard to the documentation submitted for the category of evidence at 8 c'P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), 
this decision has already addressed why the documentation submitted by the petitioner does not 
rise to the level of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the 
field. Moreover, the petitioner has failed to establish her receipt of "prizes or awards" that 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 student awards, scholarships, and fellowship, the AAO finds that they fail to 
demonstrate she "is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor." See 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2). USCIS has long held that even athletes performing at the 
major league level do not automatically meet the statutory standards for immigrant classification as 
an alien of "extraordinary ability." Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Commr. 1994); 
56 Ped. Reg. at 60899. Likewise, it does not follow that receiving awards limited to students 
should necessarily qualify for approval of an extraordinary ability employment-based immigrant 
visa petition. The AAO notes that in Matter of Racine, 1995 WL 153319 at *4 (N.D. Ill. Peb. 16, 
1995), the court stated: 
[T]he plain reading of the statute suggests that the appropriate field of comparison 
is not a comparison of Racine's ability with that of all the hockey players at all 
levels of play; but rather, Racine's ability as a professional hockey player within 
the NHL. This interpretation is consistent with at least one other court in this 
district, Crimson v. INS, No. 93 C 3354, (N.D. Ill. September 9, 1993), and the 
definition of the term 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2), and the discussion set forth in the 
preamble at 56 Ped. Reg. 60898-99. 
Page 13 
The court's reasoning indicates that USCIS' interpretation of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2) is reasonable. To find otherwise would contravene the regulatory requirement at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) that this visa category be reserved for "that small percentage of 
individuals that have risen to the very top of their tield of endeavor." 
With regard to the documentation submitted for the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii), as previously discussed, the evidence submitted by the petitioner fails to 
demonstrate that the ASM, the ASTMH, and Sigma Xi require outstanding achievements of their 
members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in her field. The petitioner 
has not established that her memberships 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 his field. 
Regarding the documentation submitted for the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(iii), all 
of the petitioner's submissions were deficient in at least one of the regulatory requirements such 
as not identifying the author, not being about the petitioner, or not being accompanied by 
evidence that they were published in major media. The petitioner has not established that the 
evidence submitted for the category of evidence at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(iii) is 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. 
In regard to the documentation submitted for the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(iv), 
the nature of the petitioner's judging experience is a relevant consideration as to whether the 
evidence is indicative of her recognition beyond her own circle of collaborators. See Kazarian, 
596 F. 3d at 1122. As previously discussed, the petitioner submitted evidence demonstrating that 
she peer-reviewed a single manuscript for Molecular Immunology as of the petition's filing date. 
The petitioner has not established that her level and frequency of peer review is commensurate 
with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of her field of endeavor. The 
AAO notes that peer review of manuscripts is a routine element of the process by which articles 
are selected for publication in scientific journals. Normally a journal's editorial staff will enlist 
the assistance of numerous professionals in the field who agree to review submitted papers. It is 
common for a publication to ask several reviewers to review a manuscript and to offer 
comments. The publication's editorial staff may accept or reject any reviewer's comments in 
determining whether to publish or reject submitted papers. Without evidence that sets the 
petitioner apart from others in her field, such as evidence that she has directly received and 
completed numerous independent requests for review from a substantial number of journals or 
served in an editorial position for a distinguished journal, the AAO cannot conclude that her 
level and frequency of peer review is commensurate with sustained national or international 
With regard to the documentation submitted for the categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 204.5(h)(v) and (vi), the has documented her co-authorship of approximately twenty 
articles with her The petitioner also submitted citation evidence 
indicating that some of their research articles are well-cited. The petitioner, however, has not 
Page 14 
established that her publication record and original research contributions set her 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) ... " The AAO notes 
that the Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook (OOH), 2012-13 Edition, 
(accessed at www.bls.govloco on May 2, 2012 and incorporated into the record of proceedings), 
provides information about the nature of employment as a postsecondary teacher (professor) and the 
requirements for such a position. See http:Uwww.bls.govloohIEducation-Training-and­
LibrarvIPostsccondary-teachcrs.htm#tab-3. The handbook states that faculty "must find a balance 
between teaching students and doing research and publishing their findings. This can be 
stressful, especially for beginning teachers seeking advancement .... " Further, the doctoral 
programs training students for faculty positions require "a doctoral dissertation, which is a paper 
presenting original research in the student's tield of study." See http://www.bls.gov!ooh/ 
Education-Training-and-Library/Postsecondary-teachers.htm#tab-4. Moreover, the OOH states 
specifically with respect to microbiologists that a "solid record of published research is essential 
to get a permanent position in basic research, especially a permanent faculty position in a college 
or university." See http://www.bls. gov/ooh/life-physical-and-social-science/microbiologists· 
htm#tab_4.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. 
That said, the AAO acknowledges the positive response in the iield to the petitioner's research 
published with The director found that the petitioner has made original 
contributions of major significance to the field. The AAO is not persuaded, however, that the 
petitioner's graduate and postdoctoral research contributions, presented in some well-received 
publications with her more experienced supervisors, rise to the level of sustained national or 
international acclaim in the context of her field. 
Regarding the documentation submitted for the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii), as previously discussed, the petitioner has not established that she has 
performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished 
reputation. The evidence submitted by the petitioner does not establish that her temporary training 
positions as a graduate student and a postdoctoral researcher were leading or critical to Fudan 
University and YUSM, or otherwise commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim 
at the very top of her field. 
In regard to the documentation submitted for the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ix), the petitioner has not established that her salary of $45,960 equates to a high 
salary in relation to others in her field. The petitioner has not demonstrated that her salary places 
her among that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See 
Matter of Price at 954 (considering professional golfer's earnings versus other PGA Tour 
golfers); see also Grimson v. INS, 934 F. Supp. 965, 968 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (considering NHL 
enforcer's salary versus other NHL enforcers); Muni v. INS, 891 F. Supp. 440, 444-45 (N. D. lll. 
1995) (comparing salary of NHL defensive player to salary of other NHL defensemen). The 
salary evidence submitted by the petitioner is not indicative of or consistent with sustained 
Page 15 
national acclaim or a level of expertise indicating that she is one of that small percentage who 
have risen to 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, a postdoctoral 
associate, relies on association memberships that have not been shown to require outstanding 
achievements, online articles and review comments about her work with an undocumented level of 
readership, a single instance of peer review for Molecular Immunology as ~ 
date, her co-authorship of approximately twenty articles with her superiors __ 
citation records for her published articles, the affirmation of her colleagues that she is important to 
the laboratories where she has worked in temporary training roles as a student and a postdoctoral 
researcher, and the general praise of her references. 
The AAO notes that many of the petitioner's references' credentials are far more impressive than 
those of the petitioner. For example / states: 
In addition,_has 
has also served as and 
•••••••• states: "I am a full professor at the Institute of Genetics at Fudan University, 
China. I have published more than 80 papers and book chapters in the field of cell biology, plant 
genetics and have supervised more than 30 Ph.D. students." 
Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, states that he previously worked as an Associate 
Professor at Yale University and has authored "more than 50 peer-reviewed articles and book 
chapters. " 
. .. I have published 46 articles in 
Page 16 
has authored more than eighty peer-reviewed publications, states: 
a research institute of the _ 
My laboratory uses the fruit fly as a 
model genetic system doing cutting-edge research in the field of innate immunity and 
host-pathogen interactions. I have published extensively in top-quality peer-reviewed 
journals. I have made major contributions to elucidating the molecular mechanism of 
innate immunity. 
states: "I am full professor of Department of Education and Collaboration, 
Research Center Zoonosis Control, Hokkaido University. . .. I have published more than a 
hundred papers .... " 
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 far 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. The 
submitted evidence is not indicative of a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated 
by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). 
III. Conclusion 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clear! y 
demonstrate that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the 
small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished 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)(1 )(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. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting that the 
AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis). 
Page 17 
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.