dismissed EB-1A Case: Sciences

identifying riMa deleted to 
prevent cka'}' ~nwarranted 
invasion of personal privac}, 
PUBLIC COpy 
C.S.Department of Homeland Sccurit)' 
U.S. Citi7cmhir and ImmigLlLilll1 Sl.'rvice~ 
Administrative Apr('al~ Office (AAO) 
20 t', .... las::;;lChus,Clls Ave., :'-J.W., MS 2(j()() 
W<l~hJtl£lon, DC 20529-2090 
;.~ ~~~ i:!:t~~~N~n 
<"," . ., Services '</:1'\',0 ~'f,c'::> 
DATE: MAY 032012 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(1 )(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.c. § IIS3(b)( I )(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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. § 103.S(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, 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petitIOn was denied by the Director, 
Nebraska Service Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. 
The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(I)(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 lei) 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 asserts that she is "one of the small percentage who has risen to the top of 
the 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 reflects routine duties or accomplishments in the field that do not compare 
with the accomplishments of the most experienced and renowned members of the field.' 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 dean, 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. Law 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in peltinent part, that: 
I The legal authority for this two-step analysis will be discussed at length below. 
Page 3 
(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 (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 10 I 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. ld. 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; 
Page 4 
(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. USC/S, 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, 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 
2 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 
"sustained national or international acclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary 
ability" visa. 8 U .S.c. § 1153(b)(I )(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 March 1, 20 I 0, seeks to classify the petltlOner as an alien with 
extraordinary ability as a research scientist. The petitioner earned her Ph.D. in Microbiology 
under the direction of 
the time of filing, the petitioner was working as a 
postdoctoral research associate at Washington University in St. Louis (W ASL) under the 
supervision of ••••••••••••••••••••••••• The petitioner has 
submitted documentation pertaining to the following categories of evidence under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3).3 
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 a letter indicating that she "is a member in good standing of the 
American Society for Microbiology (ASM)," but she failed to submit documentary evidence 
showing that the ASM requires outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by 
recognized national or international experts in her field. 
3 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the categories of evidence not discussed in this 
decision. 
Page 6 
The petitioner submitted a certificate issued by 
1000, certifying that the petitioner "is an Associate Faculty Member to a member of 
Faculty of 1000 for the 'Microbial Growth & Development' Section." The petitioner also submitted 
general information about Faculty of 1000 from its website, but the online material submitted by the 
petitioner did not specify the organization's membership requirements. In response to the director's 
request for evidence (RFE), the petitioner submitted an unsigned letter 
Director, Faculty of 1000, stating: 
[The petitioner] was appointed at the request o~a Faculty of 1000 Member of 
the Microbial Growth & Development Faculty, ~iate Faculty Member to assist 
her in evaluation the scientific literature for Faculty of 1000 (www.fJ()()O.com). 
Associate Faculty Members, such as [the petitioner] are nominated colleagues, upon [sic] 
their extraordinary ability, of Faculty Members who they collaborate with to identify 
scientifically noteworthy papers and write short commentaries that reflect the opinion of 
both of them. 
As the preceding letter from is unsigned and does not provide any contact 
information, it has no evidentiary letter asserts that Associate Faculty Members are 
nominated by colleagues based on "their extraordinary ability," but merely repeating the 
language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. F edin 
Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 
1990); Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). Regardless, the 
AAO cannot conclude that receiving a nomination from one's immediate supervisor is indicative of 
outstanding achievements. There is no documentary evidence (such as membership bylaws or 
rules of admission) showing that Faculty of 1000 requires outstanding achievements of its 
"Associate Faculty" members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in the 
petitioner's field. Moreover, the AAO notes that petitioner's "Associate Faculty" membership is 
less restrictive than the Faculty membership designation held by individuals such as •••• 
The petitioner submitted evidence showing that she is a "Full Member" of Sigma Xi which has 
membership "numbering nearly 65,000 active members." The submitted materials about Sigma Xi 
indicate that the society invites to full membership "those who have demonstrated noteworthy 
achievements in research." These achievements must be evidenced by "publications, patents, 
written reports or a thesis or dissertation, which must be available to the Committee on Admission if 
requested." A noteworthy achievement is not necessarily an outstanding achievement. In fact, the 
record reveals that Sigma Xi does not take a particularly strict view of noteworthy achievements. 
S to the director's RFE, the petitioner submitted a July 29, 2010 letter from 
, stating that the "Committee on Qualifications 
qualIJ:Jc,ltIC>Il to include primary authorship of two papers." In 
addition, "an earned doctoral degree may be substituted for one paper." The AAO cannot conclude 
that primary authorship of one or two papers constitutes outstanding achievements. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets the plain language 
requirements of this regulatory criterion. 
Page 7 
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. 
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 papers4 
The petitioner submitted an article in Oklahoma Daily, the University of Oklahoma's student 
newspaper, entitled "Professor researches alternative car fuels," but the date of the article was not 
included as required by the plain language of this criterion. The article mentions the 
petitioner and quotes her, but it is primarily about The petitioner also submitted a 
March 2005 article on the website of Oceanus magazine entitled 
but the article, which does not even mention the petitIoner, IS not 
no evidence (such as circulation information or readership data) showing 
that Oklahoma Daily and the website of Oceanus magazine qualify as major media. 
~d 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. The plain 
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). 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.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v) and will be addressed there. 
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 j()r which 
classification is sought. 
4 Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. For 
example, an article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax County. 
Virginia, for instance, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
Page 8 
2008 e-mail message from the 
reclue:sting that she review a manuscript entitled 
new cell poles and contributes to the timing of cell 
division." On September 7, the forwarded the message to the petitioner stating: "If 
you have any interest in reviewing this let me know." There is no documentary evidence showing 
that the petitioner actually completed the review. 
The petitioner submitted a FelJru;arv from the Editor of Journal of 
addressed to entitled 
The 
message included a copy of the reviewer evaluation comments submitted by There is no 
documentary evidence indicating that the petitioner actually completed the preceding manuscript 
review. 
wa~ interested in reviewing manuscript. is 
showing that the petitioner actually completed the manuscript review. 
The petitioner submitted e-mail correspondence from the Editor of Journal of ~ 
a manuscript entitled_ 
The message included a copy of the 
review comments submitted by There is no documentary evidence showing that the 
petitioner actually completed the preceding manuscript review. 
While the preceding documentation indicates that_ reviewed manuscripts for Genes & 
Development, Journal of Bacteriology, and FEMS Microbiology Letters, there is no documentary 
evidence from the preceding journals' editorial staff confirming the petitioner's participation as a 
reviewer. 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 (if Treasure Craji 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)(l). The nonexistence or other unavailability of primary evidence creates a 
presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2)(i). The record contains no review requests 
directly from the preceding journals' editorial staff addressed to the petitioner. The regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) requires evidence that the petitioner has served as "a judge of the work 
of others." The phrase "a judge" implies a formal designation in a judging capacity, either on a 
panel or individually as specified at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). The regulation cannot be read to 
include every informal instance of a supervisor requesting input and assistance from his or her 
subordinate. In this instance, there is no documentary evidence establishing that the petitioner, 
rather than her supervisor_ served as part of a formal judging process for the above 
journals. 
Page 9 
The pelltloner submitted evidence demonstrating that she and _provided evaluation 
comments for three research publications for Faculty of 1000 Biology in 2009. As previously 
discussed, the record includes a certificate from the Managing Director of Faculty of 1000 stating 
that the a member of Faculty of 1000 for 
Section." In response to the director's RFE, the petitioner 
submitted e-nlall messages of 1000 dated February 16, 2010 and July 21, 2010 
identifying her as an "Associate Faculty Member" and requesting that she submit recommendations 
and highlight interesting articles. There is no documentary evidence showing that the petitioner 
actually completed her 2010 assignments. Further, the July 21, 2010 e-mail request from Faculty of 
1000 post-dates the petition's March 1,2010 filing date. Eligibility must be must established at the 
time of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ J03.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg' I 
Comm'r 1971). Accordingly, the AAO will not consider articles evaluated by the petitioner after 
March J, 2010 in this proceeding. 
The submitted documentation demonstrates that the petitioner provided evaluation comments for 
three research publications for Faculty of 1000 Biology as of the petition's filing date. This 
documentation minimally satisfies the plain language requirements of the regulation at 8 c.F.R. 
§ 204.S(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 numerous citations that note 
the importance of her graduate research under the guidance of 
Thus, the director found that the petitioner 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(v). 
Evidence of the alien's authorship (If scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
The petitioner has documented her co-authorship of seven journal articles with as of 
the petition's filing date and, thus, has submitted qualifying evidence pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.S(h)(3)(vi). Accordingly, the petitioner has established that she meets the plain language 
requirements of this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has perfonned in a leading or critical role for organizations 
or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner submitted letters of support discussing her graduate research at the University of 
Oklahoma and her postdoctoral research at WUSL. In response to the director's RFE, the 
petitioner submitted an August 6, 2010 letter from stating: 
Page \0 
[The petitioner) worked for the University of Oklahoma as a Graduate Researcher, 
leading a project that generated several scientific publications ... and was critical to 
generating further research revenue for the University of Oklahoma. The generation of 
scientific publications is critical in maintaining the University's international reputation 
and [the petitioner) played a leading role in generating these publications. Her work was 
also critical in terms of generating knowledge for the successful funding of a Department 
of Energy grant to The University of Oklahoma in 2008. She also played a leading role 
in generating the grant application. 
asserts that the petitioner performed in a leading and critical role as a graduate 
rp',,,"rrl'Pr at University of Oklahoma, but merely repeating the language of the statute or 
regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 
F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr Associates, Inc. v. 
Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). While the petitioner has performed admirably on 
the research projects and other tasks to which she was assigned, there is no evidence 
demonstrating that her subordinate roles were leading or critical for the University of Oklahoma 
and WUSL. 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 the University of 
Oklahoma was that of a graduate student. Moreover, the petitioner's postdoctoral appointment at 
WUSL is designed to provide specialized research experience and training in her field of 
endeavor 5 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. 
w,uu,<;ou a letter from 
stating that the peltiti,ont!r 
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. 
5 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. which 
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 
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/life-phvsical-and-social-scicnce/microbiologists.htm#tabA. accessed on April 27. 2012, copy 
incorporated into the record of proceedings. 
Page II 
Summary 
In light of the above, the petitioner has submitted evidence that meets the plain language of the 
specific regulations at 8 CF,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 CF.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 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3). See also Kazarian, 596 F.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 CF.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii) - (iv), (viii) and (ix). 
With regard to the documentation submitted for the category of evidence at 8 CF.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3 )(ii), as previously discussed, the evidence submitted by the petitioner fails to 
demonstrate that the ASM, Faculty of 1000, and Sigma Xi require outstanding achievements of 
their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in her field. Further, the 
AAO notes that the petitioner's "Associate Faculty" membership in Faculty of 1000 is less 
restrictive than the Faculty membership designation held by _ Thus, the AAO cannot 
conclude that the petitioner's "Associate Faculty" designation is an indication that she "is one of 
that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 CF.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). 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 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(iii), the 
petitioner submitted articles from Oklahoma Daily and the website of Oceanus magazine, but the 
articles are not about the petitioner or indicative of her being at the very top of her field. Further, 
there is no circulation evidence showing that the preceding articles were in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media. The petitioner also submitted evidence indicating that 
her work has been cited to by other researchers in their publications. As previously discussed, 
the articles citing to the petitioner's work are primarily about the authors' own work or recent 
trends in the field, and are not about the petitioner or even her work. The petitioner has not 
established that the evidence submitted for the category of evidence at 8 CF.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 CER. § 204.5(h)(iv), 
the nature of the petitioner's judging experience is a relevant consideration as to whether the 
Page 12 
evidence is indicative of his recognition beyond her own circle of collaborators. See Kazarian, 
596 F. 3d at 1122. As previously discussed, the record contains no review requests from the 
editorial staff of Genes & Development, Journal of Bacteriology, and FEMS Microbiology Letters 
addressed directly to the petitioner. There is no documentary evidence establishing that the 
petitioner, rather than her supervisor_ served as part of a formal judging process for the 
preceding journals. Even if the petitioner were to establish that she participated in reviewing 
articles for Genes & Development, Journal of Bacteriology, and FEMS Microbiology Letters, the 
petitioner's level and frequency of peer review is not commensurate with sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top of the 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 acclaim at the very top of the field. For 
instance, with to her references' the submitted documentation 
The petitioner also submitted documentation indicating that she and_provided evaluation 
comments for three research publications for Faculty of 1000 Biology in 2009. However, even the 
petitioner's selection for those reviews resulted from her association with _ Thus, the 
submitted evidence is not indicative of the petitioner's recognition beyol'K!""hef""n circle of 
collaborators. See Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1122. Moreover, as previously discussed, the 
petitioner's "Associate Faculty" des~aculty of 1000 is less restrictive titan tlte "Faculty" 
membership designation held by _ The petitioner has not established that her 
participation as an "Associate Faculty" evaluator for Faculty of 1000 Biology 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 the field. 
Regarding tlte documentation submitted for the categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(v) 
and (vi), the petitioner has documented her co-authorship of seven journal articles with ••• 
_based on her research at the University of Oklahoma. The petitioner also submitted 
citation evidence indicating that some of their research articles are well-cited. The petitioner, 
however, has not 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 (I) demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim in 
the sciences, arts, education, business or athletics (as shown through extensive documentation) ... " 
Page 13 
The AAO notes that the Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook (OOH), 2012-13 
Edition, (accessed at www.bls.gov/oco on April 27, 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 htlp://www.bls.gov/oohiEducation­
Training-and-Library/Postsecondary-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 field of study." See hllp://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.bIs. gov/ooh/lifc-ph ysical-and-social-scicnce/microb iologists. 
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. Finally, there is no documentary evidence showing that the petitioner has published any 
frequ=: research articles based on her work at WUSL. According to the letter of support 
from_ the petitioner has worked at WUSL since April 2007. There is no citation evidence 
showing that any published findings resulting from the petitioner's research at WUSL are well cited. 
The statute and regulations, however, require the petitioner to demonstrate that her national or 
international acclaim as a researcher has been sustained. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 
8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(1)(A)(i), and 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The documentation submitted for the 
categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(v) and (vi) is not commensurate with sustained 
national or international acclaim as of the filing date of the petition. 
That said, the AAO acknowledges the positive response in the field to the petitioner's research 
published The director found that the petitioner 
has made to field. The AAO is not persuaded, 
however, that the petitioner's graduate research contributions, presented in only a few well-received 
publications with her former Ph.D. advisor, rise to the level of sustained national or international 
acclaim in the context of her field. 
With regard to 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 the 
University of Oklahoma and WUSL, 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 $36,996 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 
Page 14 
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. Ill. 
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 
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. 
On appeal, the petitioner states: "I have mastered scientific skills in multi-disciplinary fields such as 
Environmental Microbiology, Molecular Microbiology, Genetics, Cell Biology, and Biochemistry. 
Scientists with such combinations are The submission 
2008 letter 
While there are relatively few experts in the field of bioremediation, there are even fewer 
that have any expertise with anaerobic microorganisms. That is because the organisms 
involved are difficult to cultivate and specialized techniques are absolutely necessary. 
While I hesitate to hazard a guess, I would say that there are no more than about 200 
individuals worldwide (about half in the U.S.) with comparable skills. 
Assuming the petitioner's skills are unique, the classification sought was not designed merely to 
alleviate skill shortages in a given field. The issue of whether similarly trained workers are 
available in the United States is an issue under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor 
through the alien employment labor certification process. See Matter of New York State 
Department u/Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215, 221 (Comm'r 1998). 
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 
research associate, relies on association memberships that have not been shown to require 
outstanding achievements, published material which is not primarily about her or indicative of her 
acclaim in the field, a few instances of participation with _ as reviewer and paper 
evaluator, the petitioner's co-authorship of seven journal articles with 
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, 
refereed scientific articles and have 
international meetings. I have supported my research efforts by winning millions of 
dollars in grant support. . .. I have been an Editor for the leading interdisciplinary 
journal in both environmental science and engineering (Environmental Science and 
Page 15 
Technology) for 20 years. I am a past member of the Committee on Environmental 
Foundation Lecturer. 
. Affairs Board, I am the past multi­
of the ASM and I have been an ASM 
~~Ii;~:';~~.~~~ I am a very successful scientist with more 
publications in scientific journals. Our studies on iron reducing bacteria from deep 
surface was highlighted by studies on isolating acidophilic 
methanotrophs was also highlighted by several newspapers in 1998. Both of these 
findings were published in Science in 1997 and 1998. . .. I chaired the 7th Conference on 
Small Genomes, of Energy 
(DOE) workshop 
•• ~1~9~ 
Washington D.C., the 9th International Conference on Microbial Genomes, Gatlinburg, 
TN , and the 11 th International Conference on Microbial Genomes, 
in Durham, NC. . .. Furthermore, I received an achievement 
respectively. I became an 
. the best journal in the field 
am a the American Academy of 
Microbiology, and a Fellow of American Association for the Advancement of Science. 
an active principal 
years. . . . by being elected a AAAS 
of the American Academy of Miicf()biolc)g, where I have also 
I was Editor in 
I have been a 
grant reviewer for NIH, DOE, USDA, and NSF on occasions and was a formal panel 
member of the NIH Microbial Physiology and Genetics for two terms, 1988-1992 and 
1996-1998 .... I have published over 85 peer-reviewed papers in well-respected journals 
and edited one book. 
states: 
am serving as the 
efore taking the current positi.on. 
of botany and microbic'log 
addition, I served as a panel member 
Page 16 
reviewer for more than 20 major international research journals on biology. I have 
published ... in prestigious research journals such as Cell, PNAS, Plant Cell, Plant 
Journal, Journal of Biological Chemistry, Developmental Cell, and Current Biology, etc. 
As previously mentioned, 
_ The petitioner submitted curriculum vitae indicating that she is a member of 
the Editorial Advisory Board for Molecular Biology, has served as a reviewer for eleven 
journals, and has completed an "average of 10 reviews per year." 
states: "My current appointment at the is at the Full 
professor level, which is the rank for a professor in the United States." According to his 
curriculum has authored more than two dozen published articles. 
I am currentl y an 
am principal investigator on 
numerous grants contracts exceed 2 million dollars in funding. I am currently 
serving on the editorial board of the Journal of Microbiological Methods, one of the top 
journals in the field, and acting as an ad hoc reviewer for numerous scientific and 
engineering journals. 
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). The petitioner seeks a highly 
restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top of their respective fields, 
rather than for individuals progressing toward the top at some unspecified future time. 
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 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 intemationallevel. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to 
section 203(b)( 1 )(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
Page 17 
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). 
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.