dismissed EB-1A Case: Sciences

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
DATE: SEP 2 8 20" Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
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)(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 I-290B, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.5(a)(1 )(i) requires that any motion must be 
filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
-. \!J A.-~ I"i? _ _ (/~- V/-
~ 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in the sciences, pursuant to 
section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(1)(A). The 
director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim 
necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
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.S(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, the petitioner submits a brief offering no additional documentary evidence. For the reasons 
discussed below, the AAO upholds the director's ultimate determination that the petitioner has not 
established his eligibility for the classification sought. 
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. [d.; 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be established 
either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized award) or 
through the submission of qualifying evidence under 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; 
Page 4 
(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. l 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 8 C.F.R. 103.3(a)(l)(iv); Soltane v. DOl, 381 
I 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 
F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004); Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 
(E.D. Cal. 2001), aff'd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003) (recognizing the AAO's de novo authority). 
II. Analysis 
A. Evidentiary Criteria2 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
~ioner submits a travel grant in the amount of 
_ The director did not address this criterion. The sued the grant to help finance the 
petitioner's attendance at a conference in August of 2003. Specifically, _ subtracted the travel grant 
amount from the petitioner's registration fee. '--issued the grant based on one of the petitioner's 
unidentified poster abstracts. The petitioner characterizes the travel grant as an award. The petitioner 
did not submit evidence to establish that" issues travel grants based on excellence in the field of 
endeavor. 
Additionally, the plain language of the regulation at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) requires evidence of 
"awards" or "prizes" in the plural, which 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. 3 Thus, the travel award from :annot serve to meet 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. 
The petitioner submits evidence of membership in 
director did not address this criterion. The submitted material about 
invites to full membership to "any individual who has shown noteworthy achievement as an original 
2 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the regulatory categories of evidence 
not discussed in this decision. 
J See Maramjaya v. US CIS, 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 6 
investigator in a field of pure or applied science .... " The petitioner however did not submit evidence 
to indicate what _ considers to be a noteworthy achievement.4 Without such evidence, the 
petitioner cannot establish that a noteworthy achievement is necessarily an outstanding achievement 
anticipated under this regulatory criterion. 
The petitioner notes that more than 170 members of __ have won the Nobel Prize. The prestige 
of the Nobel Prize is not in dispute. It remains, however, that the petitioner is not a recipient of the 
Nobel Prize. Thus, its significance is irrelevant. Tha_includes members who have won the 
Nobel Prize does not impart that distinction to the vast majority of its members who have not been so 
recognized. It remains, a "noteworthy" achievement, as defined by the society, is not an outstanding 
achievement which is required by the plain language of the regulation. Thus, the petitioner's 
membership ir 2 cannot serve to meet this criterion. The petitioner also provided no evidence 
indicating that admittance to the organization is judged by recognized national or international experts 
in the field which is part of the plain language requirement of this regulatory criterion. 
Additionally, the plain language of the regulation at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) requires evidence of 
"membership in associations" in the plural, which is consistent with the statutory requirement for 
extensive evidence. Section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act. As stated above, the AAO can infer that the 
regulatory criteria in the plural have meaning. Thus, even if the AAO viewed _ as an 
organization which requires outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or fields, which it does not, the petitioner's 
membership in Sigma Xi alone cannot serve to meet this criterion. 
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. 
The petitioner submits four articles as evidence under this regulatory criterion. The director determined 
the petitioner did not meet the requirements of this criterion. The plain language of the regulation at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires that the published material be "about" the petitioner relating to his 
work. The record contains three review articles that cite the petitioner's work in a footnote in addition 
to citing numerous articles from others in the field. The fourth article appears in a magazine, Drug 
Discovery and Development, and references an interview of the petitioner from another magazine. The 
petitioner submits no evidence to establish Drug Discover and Development is a professional or major 
trade publication or other major media as required by this criterion. The articles are about recent 
innovations in the petitioner's field of endeavor and are not about the petitioner as required by the 
regulatory criterion. In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence that 
meets the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
4 _ bylaws define a noteworthy achievement as, "must be evidenced by publications, patents, 
written reports or a thesis or dissertation." See http://www.sigmaxi.org/about/organization/bylaw.shtml 
accessed on September 15, 2011. 
Page 7 
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 submits evidence of seven emails from the editorial staff members of scientific journals 
requesting his services to peer review articles. The record also includes the petitioner's review of each 
of the articles. The director determined the petitioner did not meet the requirements of this criterion. 
The petitioner provided evidence accompanying his initial filing indicating he had been invited to serve 
as a session chair and co-chair at scientific two scientific conferences. The petitioner did not indicate 
the regulatory criterion to which USCIS should apply this evidence. The director's decision applied 
this evidence to the regulatory criterion at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), as the judge of the work of others. 
On appeal, the petitioner does not refute the director's decision to equate serving as chair and co-chair 
at these conferences under the judging the work of others criterion. 
~porting the appeal indicates that a supporting letter from 
...........- Programming co-chair of the conference in which the petitioner was the 
session chair)" identifies the role of the session chair at the 2009 scientific conference, which among 
other duties was to "review and accept abstracts submitted to the session, and schedule the timing of 
contributions within the session. By means of selecting speakers for their respective sessions, the 
Session Chairs have responsibility and authority to highlight and . 
direction of electrophoresis research." The record contains this letter from 
which the petitioner provided in response to the director's request for evidence. 
On also indicates that a supporting letter from 
petitioner's judging duties at a scientific conference held in 2006. The petitioner submits additional 
evidence listing American Electrophoresis Society (AES) as the primary sponsor of the conference .• 
_supporting letter is part of the record and states: 
In recognition of accomplishments and expertise, he was invited 
to organize a seSSIOn "BIOMEMS and Microfluidics: Proteome ~ 
Annual . of the American Electrophoresis Society (AES) held in ~ 
ably shouldered the responsibilities of a session organizer, which include 
soliciting abstracts from researchers across the nation and judging the work for originality, 
accuracy, and relevance. put together a very impressive session which was 
widely attended and included talks by leading researchers .... 
_ indicates the petitioner was the session organizer at the 2006 conference; however evidence 
submitted by the petitioner in support of his role at the conference only indicates the petitioner served 
as the co-chair. _ fails to establish how he is aware of the petitioner's role at the 2006 
conference or that_is authorized to represent AES by iden~etitioner's role at the 
AES conference. Without such evidence, the AAO can only consider_claims about the 2006 
Page 8 
conference to be assertions. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not 
sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22I&N 
Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&NDec. 190 (Reg'l 
Comm'r 1972)). Additionally, the petitioner did not submit evidence to establish his role as co-chair at 
the 2006 conference. As a result, the lack of supporting evidence to corroborate _ assertion 
that the petitioner's service as the co-chair at the 2006 conference included duties that can be construed 
to include serving as the a judge of the work of others, this evidence will not be considered to qualify 
under this criterion. 
Notwithstanding the AAO's concerns regarding the 2006 conference, the petitioner's peer review of 
articles for several scientific journals and his position as Session Chair at the 2009 AES scientific 
conference establishes he meets the plain language requirements of this criterion set forth 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 the petitioner did not meet the requirements of this criterion. In support of this 
criterion the petitioner submits two patent applications with no evidence that the U.S. Patent and Trade 
Office approved either patent application. This office has previously stated that a patent is not 
necessarily evidence of a track record of success with some degree of influence over the field as a 
whole. See Matter of New York State Dep't. of Transp., 22 I&N Dec. 215, 221 n. 7, (Comm'r 1998). 
Rather, the significance of the innovation must be determined on a case-by-case basis. Id. The 
director's decision noted that the petitioner licensed one patent to a corporation, that the license has 
since expired, and that no commercial sales have resulted from this licensing agreement. The petitioner 
failed to rebut the director's finding relating to this patent licensing agreement. Thus, the impact of the 
device is not documented in the record. The petitioner submits no evidence that the licensed patent is 
having an impact on nor is it producing an effect on his field. 
Regarding the petitioner's remaining research, 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. The AAO must presume that the 
phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, that 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 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. 
The record contains seven articles published in scientific journals. The petitioner is the primary 
author of three of these articles and the secondary author of the remaining four articles. The record 
Page 9 
also contains a chapter in a scientific handbook, of which the petitioner serves as the primary author. 
The record reflects that two of the petitioner's articles have received a moderate amount of citations. 
While a moderate amount of citations demonstrates awareness of the petitioner's work and its value, 
not every researcher who performs moderately valuable research has inherently made a contribution 
of major significance to the field as a whole. It remains the petitioner'S burden to document the actual 
impact of his articles. The regulations contain a separate criterion regarding the authorship of published 
articles. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). If the regulations are to be interpreted with any logic, it must be 
presumed that the regulation views contributions as a separate evidentiary requirement from scholarly 
articles.5 While the AAO takes into consideration the citations and ranking of the journals in which the 
petitioner's mticles appear, such as Analytical Chemistry and Electrophoresis, it is not persuasive that 
the moderate citations of the petitioner's articles are reflective of the major significance of his work in 
the field. The petitioner failed to establish how those findings or citations of his work by others have 
significantly contributed to his field as required by this regulatory criterion. 
The remaining evidence relevant to this criterion consists of nine letters. All of these letters appear to 
be solicited in support of the petitioner's immigrant visa petition and seven of the letters are from 
current or former collaborators of the petitioner and cannot be considered wholly independent. 
In reference to the letters from the petitioner's collaborators and immediate circle of colleagues, most 
identify his work related to liver cancer detection and possible future achievements that may result 
from his work. In addition these letters discuss the petitioner'S published articles and the fact that 
others cite his work. 
•• •• •• p p y pp p 
scientific journals and the petitioner's research which led to two patent applications and eventually to 
a third published article in a scientific journal. The AAO addresses these published articles and 
patent applications separately within this decision. also claims the petitioner made 
significant contributions to his department through the receipt of several federal grants. The record 
does not bear this assertion out with documents to corroborate this assertion. As previously noted, 
going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the 
burden of proof in these proceedings. See Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. Moreover, the vast majority of 
research is grant funded. The petitioner has not estabished that grant funding, based on the future 
potential of the funded research, is indicative of or consistent with a completed contribution of major 
significance. 
5 Publication and presentations are not sufficient evidence under 8 c.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence 
that they were of "major significance." Kazarian v. US CIS, 580 P.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009) aff'd in part 
596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 20 to). In 20 to, the Kazarian court reaffirmed its holding that the AAO did not abuse 
its discretion in finding that the alien had not demonstrated contributions of major significance. 596 F.3d at 
1122. 
Page 10 
served in various 
management positlons at the time the petitioner's employment with • 
_identifies some of the petitioner's accomplishments at the company, namely how the 
petitioner's research served as the basis of new techniques and for the introduction of new products. 
One such product discusses is a liver cancer detection device which he alleges Japan 
has pursued and has recently launched. However, neither nor the petitioner provides 
documentary evidence to corroborate this assertion. Going on record without supporting documentary 
evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these . See Soffici, 
22 I&N Dec. at 165. In the alternative, if the AAO were to accept this as . 
only states the use of the device has been launched in one country. statement does 
not indicate the petitioner's device is being used in a manner or a volume that can be considered to 
have an impact on the field as a whole. identifies certificates awarded to the petitioner 
for novel inventIons; however, the record contains no evidence of these certificates. The letter also 
claims that _ is currently developing one of the petitioner's inventions into a commercial 
product which Caliper will market in the future. A petitioner must establish the elements for the 
approval of the petition at the time of filing. A petition may not be approved if the beneficiary was 
not qualified at the priority date, but expects to become eligible at a subsequent time. See 8 c.F.R. 
§§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). 
also notes two articles the petitioner published in scientific journals while working at 
_ The AAO addresses these published articles and patent applications separately within this 
decision. 
France 
~octoral researchers are using complex codes the petitioner developed. , 
~does not identify these postdoctoral researchers, if they are independent or are the 
petitioner's former or current collaborators, or how these researchers are using the codes. 
Additionally, the record lacks evidence that might also make apparent the effect of these codes on 
the petitioner's field. 
These letters also make several assertions of the petitioner's achievements. The letters fail to 
provide accompanying evidence to corroborate the claims and lack specificity of how the petitioner's 
achievements have affected the field or that the asserted achievements are being used or reproduced 
within the petitioner's field. While such letters are important in providing details about the 
petitioner's role in various projects, they cannot by themselves establish the petitioner's acclaim 
beyond his immediate circle of colleagues. Vague, solicited letters from local colleagues that do not 
specifically identify contributions or provide specific examples of how those contributions 
influenced the field are insufficient. Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009) aff'd in 
part 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010).6 
6 In 2010, the Kazarian court reiterated that the AAO's conclusion that "letters from physics professors attesting 
to fthe alien's] contributions in the field" were insufficient was "consistent with the relevant regulatory 
language." 596 F.3d at 1122. 
Page 11 
The 
from Both letters attest to the petitioner's influence on the field through the authorship of 
scholarly articles, and both claim to cite to the petitioner's work within their own scholarly articles. 
citation to the petitioner, identifies the petitioner's area of work (analyte stacking) as a 
potential area where findings are relevant. article shows no reliance on 
and lends no credence to the petitioner's findings which might theoretically support 
own work. The fact that independent experts in the field cite to the petitioner's own work might 
generally show his work is valued in the field. However, in instances such as this, where the 
citations show little or no reliance on the petitioner's findings, the citations cannot be viewed to hold 
the same sway as citations that show influence. 
The letter from _identifies how the petitioner's work with liver cancer detection "paves the 
way" to develop new detection instruments and how the petitioner is "focusing his efforts" on 
leveraging a device that will help overcome bottlenecks in the production of biofuels. These are 
speculative benefits of a futuristic nature, however the classification the petitioner seeks requires the 
achievements that have already come to fruition. A petitioner must establish the elements for the 
approval of the petition at the time of filing. A petition may not be approved if the self-petitioner 
was not qualified at the priority date, but expects to become eligible at a subsequent time. See 
8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
_also states that the petitioner, "has s~ impacted both fundamental and appllied 
aspects of electrokinetic microfluidic systems." ~ does not, however, explain how this field 
is appl~itioner's work. Rather, he refers generally to the citations of the petitioner's work. 
While .....-uses his own cite of the petitiner's work as an example, as stated above, the actual 
cite shows no reliance on the petitioner's work. 
_ cites to the petitioner's work within his own article. However the citation is contained 
within a single paragraph in which _ includes the citation to the petitioner with 27 other 
citations to other scientific works. More specifically, _ cites the petitioner's article as one of 
five articles for a single proposition. This citation appears to be background and it does not appear 
that shows any substantial reliance on the petitioner's work within his own works. In his 
also attests to the liver cancer detection device the petitioner developed. However, 
neither nor the evidence on record establish that research laboratories or medical facilities 
are using this device or that the device has imposed an influece on the field which would indicate 
this device constitutes a contribution of major significance. While the two independent researchers' 
reliance on the petitioner's work show the petitioner's work is not without value, this fact alone does 
not establish the petitioner has made contributions of major significance in the field. 
The Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board) has held that testimony should not be disregarded 
simply because it is "self-serving." See, e.g., Matter of S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 1328, 1332 (BIA 2000) 
Page 12 
(citing cases). The Board also held, however: "We not only encourage, but require the introduction 
of corroborative testimonial and documentary evidence, where available." Id. 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). 
Vague, solicited letters from local colleagues that do not specifically identify contributions or 
provide specific examples of how those contributions influenced the field are insufficient. 7 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. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately 
responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. 
Id. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of 
eligibility; USCIS may, as this decision has done above, evaluate the content of those letters as to 
whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795; 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"). USCIS may even give less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated, in accord with 
other information or is in any way questionable. Id. at 795; see also Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 
at 165 (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. at 190). 
The regulation requires original contributions of major significance in the field. While the petitioner 
has established he has made original contributions to his field of endeavor, his achievements and 
accomplishments, as of the priority date, fail to rise to the level of being considered of "major" 
significance. As a result, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence that meets the plain 
language requirements of 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 submits evidence of serving as the author of seven published scholarly articles in 
addition to one chapter in a scientific handbook related to his field. This evidence meets the plain 
language requirements of 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Summary 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted the requisite evidence under at least three of the 
evidentiary categories for which evidence must be submitted to meet the minimum eligibility 
requirements necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. Nevertheless, the AAO will 
review the evidence in the aggregate as part of our final merits determination. 
7 Kazarian v. US CIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cif. 2009) aff'd in part 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cif. 2010). In 2010, 
the Kazarian court reiterated that the AAO's conclusion that "letters from physics professors attesting to [the 
alien's] contributions in the field" was insufficient was "consistent with the relevant regulatory language." 596 
F.3d at 1122. 
Page 13 
B. Final Merits Determination 
In accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step is 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." 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). See Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. While the Kazarian court did not perform 
a final merits determination because the alien in that case was unable to meet the antecedent procedural 
step of submitting the requisite evidence under three criteria, the court did provide very specific 
examples of concerns that are appropriate for a final merits determination. 
As noted above, the record contains no evidence to establish that GRC issues travel grants based on 
excellence in the field of endeavor to meet the requirements of 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). GRC issued 
this travel grant to help finance the petitioner's registration fee in order for him to attend the conference 
and based their reasoning on one of the petitioner's unidentified poster abstracts. Such an award or 
grant is not indicative of or consistent with sustained national or international acclaim or status as one 
of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of their field of endeavor. 
As noted above, the record contains no evidence to establish membership in _requires 
outstanding achievements of their members. Additionally, the record contains~nce that 
admittance to _ is judged by recognized national or international experts in the petitioner's 
field to meet the requirements of 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii).8 The record lacks any other evidence to 
suggest that _ membership is indicative of or consistent with sustained national or international 
acclaim or status as one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of their field of 
endeavor. 
As noted above, the record contains no evidence to establish the existence of published material about 
the alien and relating to his work as anticipated and required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). The 
submitted articles make brief reference to the petitioner or cite to his work, but the articles are about the 
petitioner's field of endeavor. Such published material is not indicative of or consistent with sustained 
national or international acclaim or status as one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top 
of their field of endeavor. 
The record above reflects that the petitioner has performed peer-review for articles for five journals on 
a total of seven occasions. The nature of the petitioner's judging experience is a relevant 
consideration as to whether the evidence is indicative of his national or international acclaim. See 
Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1122. Scientific journals are peer reviewed and rely on many scientists to 
review submitted articles. Thus, peer review is routine in the field; not every peer reviewer enjoys 
8 An organization that boasts nearly 60,000 members does not represent only that very small percentage at the 
top of the field. See http://www.sigmax i.org/member/overviewlindex.shtml accessed on September 20, 20 II. 
-Page 14 
international recognition. Without evidence that sets the beneficiary apart from others in his field, 
such as evidence that he has reviewed manuscripts for a journal that credits a small, elite group of 
referees, received independent requests from a substantial number of journals, or served in an 
editorial position for a distinguished journal, the petitioner cannot establish that his judging 
experience is indicative of or consistent with sustained national or international recognition. While 
this evidence is representative of one who is rising within the petitioner's field, it is not indicative of 
one who has sustained acclaim and has attained a level of expertise indicating that the individual is 
one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field. The petitioner has not 
documented that he is a credited member of editorial boards for distinguished journals, which is 
typically more consistent with an exclusive group who has risen to the top of their field. For 
example, several of the individuals who submit supporting expert letters on the petitioner's behalf 
have either served as journal editors, or served on editorial boards. 
Additionally, the petitioner submits evidence establishing that on one occasion he served as a 
Session Chair for an AES scientific conference. According to _, serving in this position is 
consistent with being viewed as being outstanding in research field. Nevertheless, a single instance of 
serving as a Session Chair is not indicative of or consistent with sustained national or international 
acclaim or status as one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of their field of 
endeavor. The record contains evidence the petitioner also served as a Session Co-chair at a 2006 
AES conference; however the petitioner submits no evidence to establish his role or duties at this 
conference. 
As stated above, the petitioner is a named inventor on two patent applications. Patent applications 
and grants do not by themselves serve as the measure of an individual's ability to qualify for this 
classification. A patent grant merely provides the patentee "the right to exclude others from making, 
using, offering for sale, or selling the invention throughout the United States or importing the 
invention into the United States, and, if the invention is a process, of the right to exclude others from 
using, offering for sale or selling throughout the United States, or importing into the United States, 
products made by that process." See 35 U.S.c. § 154. Rather, the level of the impact on the field as a 
whole through the wide use of the innovation is a more appropriate measurement to determine if an 
alien has sufficiently influenced his field. See New York State Dep't. oj Transp., 22 I&N Dec. at 221 
n. 7. Although the petitioner licensed one of his patent applications to a corporation for a period of 
one year, the record does not indicate that any sales resulted from the licensing agreement and this 
agreement has since expired. Therefore, the AAO cannot conclude that the patent applications have 
produced any measureable impact on his field. In a quantifiable comparison, several of the 
individuals who submit supporting expert letters on the petitioner's behalf have a dozen or more 
patent applications filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. 
As previously discussed, the petitioner provides nine letters from individuals in the scientific field. 
While the letters describe the petitioner's achievements that are established in the record, the letters 
fall short of identifying tangible effects these achievements have had on the petitioner's field. One 
example is the liver cancer detection device the petitioner has developed. Several experts claim this 
Page 15 
will pave the way in developing new detection instruments or that this is an outstanding example of 
the petitioner's potential, but none specify how· . by this 
detection capability. The supporting letters from indicate the 
petitioner's liver cancer diagnostic device was commercially launched in Japan. The petitioner 
submits no evidence of contracts or commercial sales that might serve to corroborate this assertion. 
Additionally, no evidence is presented to show how this device is impacting the petitioner's field. 
Without a substantial, measurable impact on the field, this device cannot considerably contribute to 
the petitioner attaining the status as one of that small percentage who has risen to the very top of the 
field. 
The petitioner is the author or coauthor of seven articles published in scientific journals, two of 
which garnered a moderate amount of citations as of the priority date. Amassing a moderate amount 
of citations for two articles, and a minimal amount of citations dispersed among his remaining five 
articles does not support the finding that the petitioner is among the small percent who have risen to 
the top of the field. The petitioner's field has not responded to his work in a manner consistent with 
sustained national or international acclaim or status as one of that small percentage who have risen to 
the very top of their field of endeavor. 
The petitioner is also the first author of a chapter in a scientific handbook in 2007. Four of the 
individuals who submit supporting letters have authored one or more books and a total of 37 stand 
alone chapters. When comparing the petitioner's single chapter in a handbook to the 
accomplishments of those from whom he requested references from, the petitioner does not measure 
up to their experience and stature within the field to be considered among the small percent who 
have risen to the top of the field. 
In his support letter for the petitioner, _also states, "Overall, in my judgement, [the petitioner] 
is a brilliant scientist and I would place him at the top I-percentile among his fellow young scientists in 
the field." This statement appears to compare the petitioner to other up-and-coming research scientists 
in the field who may show the possibility of having future potential to be a leader in the field. When 
compared to the field as a whole, however, this statement does not support the position that the 
petitioner is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
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 research scientist, 
relies on a travel grant as an award, membership in a single organization, participation in the 
widespread peer review process, service as a Session Chair, his patent applications, support letters 
primarily from his current and former collaborators, and a moderate publishing record. While this may 
distinguish him from other postdoctoral researchers and research associates, the AAO will not narrow 
his field to others with his level of training and experience. Significantly, the petitioner's references list 
their own accomplishments in their curriculum vitae. has published more than 300 
original research articles, received five national or international awards, held a position on nine award 
committees, served as editor of two journals, held a position on eight journal editorial boards, authored 
Page 16 
one book, and served in the position of Session Chair for 13 scientific conferences. 
has published 80 articles, received 12 national or international awards, served as reviewer for 35 
scientific journals, authored three books, served in the position of Session Chair for three scientific 
conferences, and submitted 31 patents with 16 patents awarded. Although the petitioner shows 
potential to be a future leader of his field, it appears that the highest level of his field is well above the 
level he has attained. 
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, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself as a 
research scientist to such an extent that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or 
international acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence 
indicates that the petitioner shows talent as a research scientist, but this evidence is not persuasive that 
the petitioner's achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field. Therefore, the 
petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203 (b)(1 )(A) of the Act and the petition 
may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.s.c. § 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.