dismissed EB-1A Case: Sciences

(b)(6)
DATE: JUl 1, 2014 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massac husetts 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)(l)(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 (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. We will dismiss the 
appeal. 
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, 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.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.P.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.P.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. 
The petitioner's priority date established by the petition filing date is May 24, 2013. On August 6, 
2013, the director served the petitioner with a request for evidence (RFE). After receiving the 
petitioner's response to the RFE, the director issued his decision on November 12, 2013. On appeal, the 
petitioner submits an appellate brief with additional documentary evidence in the form of an AAO non­
precedent decision. For the reasons discussed below, we uphold the director's ultimate determination 
that the petitioner has not established her 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 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(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 lOlst Cong., 2d Sess. 59 
(1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to 
those individuals in that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. Id.; 
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 ten categories of evidence 
listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
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 decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the evaluation of evidence submitted 
to meet a given evidentiary criterion. 1 With respect to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), 
the court concluded that while users 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 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 we did)," and if the petitioner did not 
submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed to satisfy the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as we concluded)." Id. at 1122 (citing to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)). 
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, we will review the evidence under the 
plain language requirements of each criterion claimed. As the petitioner did not submit qualifying 
evidence under at least three criteria, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has not satisfied the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. I d. 
1 Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary 
requirements beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page4 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Standard of Proof 
On appeal, the petitioner implies that instead of applying the preponderance of the evidence standard of 
proof, the director applied the higher standard of the beyond a reasonable doubt standard, citing Matter 
of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369 (AAO 2010) as articulating the correct preponderance of evidence 
standard. The Chawathe decision stated: 
[T]he "preponderance of the evidence" standard does not relieve the petitioner or 
applicant from satisfying the basic evidentiary requirements set by regulation. There are 
no regulations relating to a corporation's eligibility as an "American fim1 or 
corporation" under section 316(b) of the Act. Had the regulations required specific 
evidence, the applicant would have been required to submit that evidence. Cf 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) (2006) (requiring that specific objective evidence be submitted to 
demonstrate eligibility as an alien of extraordinary ability). 
25 I&N Dec. at 375 n.7. Ultimately, the truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone 
but by its quality. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376 (citing Matter of E-M- 20 I&N Dec. 77, 
80 (Comm'r 1989)). The Chawathe decision further states: 
Even if the director has some doubt as to the truth, if the petitioner submits relevant, 
probative, and credible evidence that leads the director to believe that the claim is 
"more likely than not" or "probably" true, the applicant or petitioner has satisfied the 
standard of proof. See INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 431 (1987) (discussing 
"more likely than not" as a greater than 50% chance of an occurrence taking place) . 
!d. As the director concluded that the petitioner had not submitted relevant and probative evidence 
satisfying the regulatory requirements, the director did not violate the appropriate standard of proof. 
The standard of proof issue is separate and distinct from the petitioner's assertion that the director may 
have gone beyond the regulatory requirements, which we will address below. We affirm the director's 
ultimate conclusion that the petitioner did not submit probative evidence to establish her eligibility. 
B. Evidentiary Criteria2 
Documentation of the alien 's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognize d prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
This criterion contains several evidentiary elements the petitioner must satisfy. According to the plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), the evidence must establish that the alien is the 
2 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the regulatory categories of evidence not 
discussed in this decision. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
PageS 
recipient of the prizes or the awards (in the plural). The clear regulatory language requires that the 
prizes or the awards are nationally or internationally recognized. The plain language of the regulation 
also requires the petitioner to submit evidence that each prize or award is one for excellence in the field 
of endeavor rather than simply for participating in or contributing to an event or to a group. The 
petitioner must satisfy all of these elements to meet the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
The ne6tioner asserts eJig:ihilitv under this criterion based on one award, the second place award at the 
in 2005. As evidence of this award, the 
petitioner provided her own statement affirming her receipt of the award. The director determined that 
the petitioner did not meet the requirements of this criterion. 
First, the petitioner's statement attesting to a 2005 award is not primary evidence of the award, which 
would be a copy or a photograph of the award itself. The non-existence or other unavailability of 
required evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b)(2). While the petitioner 
asserts that the· conference organizers did not issue award certificates, she did not submit confirmation 
of that assertion from the event organizers. Moreover, even if she established that primary evidence 
does not exist or is unavailable, the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b )(2) requires the submission of 
secondary evidence, or, if secondary evidence is not available or does not exist, affidavits from persons 
not party to the petition with direct personal knowledge. The petitioner did not submit secondary 
evidence or qualifying affidavits. Rather, she submitted her statement and a letter from Dr. 
former Dean of While Dr. attests to the 
petitioner's award, he does not claim any direct personal knowledge of the award. 
Even if we were to accept the petitioner's statement and Dr. s letter as probative evidence, 
which we do not, the petitioner asserts that because the award came from the 
, an organization with an international scope, the petitioner has demonstrated 
the international recognition of her award. The international reputation of the issuing authority alone 
does not satisfy the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). The simple fact that an internationally 
known organization issues an award does not demonstrate that every award it issues is a nationally or 
internationally recognized award or prize for excellence. National and international recognition results, 
not from the issuing entity, but through the awareness of the accolade in the eyes of the field nationally 
or internationally. A petitioner can demonstrate this recognition through specific means; for example, 
through media coverage. The petitioner did not submit any evidence soecific to the recognition of the 
award she states that she received. Rather, she asserts that the sponsored a conference and 
awarded her paper second place by announcing the rankings to the conference attendees only. This 
statement does not support a finding of recognition beyond the conference organizers and 
attendees. 
Second, the petitioner only claims one award. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) requires evidence of "prizes or awards" in the plural, which is consistent with the 
statutory requirement for extensive evidence. Section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(l)(A)(i). Significantly, not all of the criteria at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3) are worded in the 
plural. Specifically, the regulations at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (ix) only require service on a 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
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, we can infer that the plural in the remaining 
regulatory criteria has meaning. In a different context, federal courts have upheld US CIS' ability to 
interpret significance from whether the singular or plural is used in a regulation. See Maramjaya v. 
USCIS, Civ. Act. No. 06-2158 (RCL) at *1, *12 (D.C. Cir. March 26, 2008); Snapnames.com Inc. v. 
Chertoff, 2006 WL 3491005, at *1, *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). 
Therefore, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language requirements of this 
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 director discussed the evidence submitted for this criterion and found that the petitioner failed to 
establish her eligibility. On appeal, the petitioner does not contest the director's findings for this 
criterion or offer additional arguments. Therefore, the petitioner has abandoned her claims under this 
criterion. Sepulveda v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2005); Hristov v. Roark, No. 
09-CV-27312011, · 2011 WL 4711885, at *1, 9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (the court found the 
plaintiff's claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO). Accordingly, the 
petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence under this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's participation , either individually or on a panel , as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an allied field of specification for which classification is sought. 
The director determined that the petitioner met the requirements of this criterion. The petitioner has 
submitted sufficient evidence to establish that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's original scientific, scholarly , artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
The plain language of this regulatory criterion contains multiple evidentiary elements that the petitioner 
must satisfy. The first is evidence of the petitioner's contributions (in the plural) in her field. These 
contributions must have already been realized rather than being potential, future contributions. The 
petitioner must also demonstrate that her contributions are original. The evidence must establish that 
the contributions are scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related in nature. The final 
requirement is that the contributions rise to the level of major significance in the field as a whole, rather 
than to a project or to an organization. The phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and,· thus, it 
has some meaning. Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 51 F. 3d 28, 31 (3rd Cir. 1995) 
quoted in APWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 626 (2nd Cir. Sep 15, 2003). Contributions of major 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
significance connotes that the petitioner's work has significantly impacted the field. See Visinscaia v. 
Beers, --- F. Supp. 2d ---, 2013 WL 6571822, at *6 (D.D.C. Dec. 16, 2013) (upholding a finding that a 
ballroom dancer had not met this criterion because she did not demonstrate her impact in the field as a 
whole). The petitioner must submit evidence satisfying all of these elements to meet the plain language 
requirements of this criterion. 
The petitioner provided conference papers, expert letters, media articles, the petitioner's authored 
textbooks, a patent, and review articles. The director determined that the petitioner did not meet the 
requirements of this criterion. Specifically, the director found that although the petitioner had made 
original contributions to her field, she did not provide evidence demonstrating that these contributions 
had already made a significant impact within her field. 
On appeal the petitioner identifies the director's error as discounting the reference letters through a 
misapplication of the findings within Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. at 795. Within the 
appellate brief, the petitioner cites to the portion of this precedent decision that discusses US CIS's 
ability to discount or to reject evidence that is not in accord with other evidence in the record. The 
petitioner asserts that because the director did not explain how the letters were not in accord with the 
remaining evidence in the record, the director should have concluded that the letters sufficiently 
demonstrated that the petitioner meets this criterion. The petitioner also cites Matter of Skirball 
Cultural Center, 25 I&N Dec. 79 (AAO), which discusses the weight to be afforded experts in an 
unrelated nonimmigrant visa classification. 
The director cited to Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. at 795, within his decision stating: 
"USCIS may, in its discretion, use such letters [of support] as advisory opinions submitted by expert 
witnesses. However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination of the alien's 
eligibility ... Without documentation showing that the beneficiary's work has made a major 
significance to the field, USCIS cannot conclude this criterion has been met." While the director did 
not find that evidence in the record explicitly contradicted the letters, the director did conclude that the 
record lacked evidence supporting the conclusions in the letters. With respect to Matter of Skirball, that 
case involved a regulation that expressly requires the submission of affidavits from experts, holding that 
USCIS may not reject the factual conclusions of experts if reliable, relevant and probative. The 
regulation at issue in Matter of Skirball Cultural Center, 8 C.P.R. § 214(p)6)(ii) explicitly requires 
affidavits or letters from recognized experts attesting to the authenticity of the group. Conversely, the 
regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) does not specify that affidavits alone may satisfy this criterion. 
Expert testimony should "assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in 
issue." Matter of D-R-, 25 I&N Dec. 445, 459 (BIA 2011). See also Visinscaia, 2013 WL 6571822, at 
* 8 (concluding that USCIS' decision to give limited weight to uncorroborated assertions from 
practitioners in the field was not arbitrary and capricious). Moreover, rather than simply citing Matter 
of Caron as support for rejecting the letters, the director considered the content of the letters and 
concluded that they did not specify how the petitioner's contributions were already having an impact in 
the field. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
age 8 
In the initial cover letter, the petitioner identifies three key contributions as qualifying her under this 
criterion: 
1. The petitioner's work resulted in an improvement in the field's understanding of the detection 
and treatment of tuberculosis; 
2. She developed a new use for relating to tuberculosis detection; and 
3. She is a pioneer in radiopharmaceutical discoveries that have multiple applications m the 
medical field, especially in the area of rapid and low cost tuberculosis detection. 
The record also contains evidence pertaining to the petitioner's patent, which this decision will also 
address. 
On appeal, the petitioner states: "Every letter [submitted initially and in response to the director's RFE] 
confirms that a significant contribution to the field has already been made." The record does not 
support this assertion. First, several of the initial letters supporting the petition contain either identical 
or nearly identical language, including typographic errors. For example, the letter from Dr. 
Assistant Professor at the states: 
I can attest to her outstanding qualifications as a leader in tuberculosis diagnostic methods 
research. There are not many female researchers in this particular biomedical research field and 
few, if any, have broken new ground in methods for diagnosing tuberculosis as [the petitioner] 
has done. She has proven that it is possible to detect tuberculosis in a[ s] little as one hour. 
The letter from Dr. the Head of the Department of Nuclear Medicine at the 
is nearly identical and states: 
I can attest to her outstanding qualifications as a leader in tuberculosis diagnostic methods 
research. There are not many female researchers in this particular biomedical research field and 
few, if any, have forged new ground in methods for diagnosing tuberculosis as Dr. has. 
She has proven that it is possible to detect tuberculosis in a[ s] little as one hour. 
With the exception of the December 6, 2010 letter from Dr. the letters submitted 
with the initial petition each contain identical or similar language in the same manner as the example 
provided above. As a general concept, when a petitioner has provided letters from different persons, but 
the language and structure contained within the letters is notably similar, the trier of fact may treat those 
similarities as a basis for questioning the claims of the petitioner. Cf Surinder Singh v. Board of 
Immigration Appeals, 438 F.3d 145, 148 (2d Cir. 2006). When letters contain such similarities, it is 
reasonable to infer that the petitioner who submitted the similar documents is the actual source from 
where the similarities derive. Cf Mei Chai Ye v. US. Dept. of Justice, 489 F.3d 517, 519 (2d Cir. 
2007). Because someone other than the authors appears to have drafted some portions of the letters, the 
letters possess diminished probative value. In evaluating the evidence, the truth is to be determined not 
by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
Second, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) 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) 
(citing cases). The BIA also held, however: "We not only encourage, but require the introduction of 
corroborative testimonial and documentary evidence, where available." /d. If testimonial evidence 
lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for the petitioner to submit corroborative 
evidence. Matter ofY-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). The opinions of experts in the field are not 
without weight and will receive consideration below. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory 
opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 
at 795. However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an 
alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. !d. Based on the extensive similarities between the above 
letters, USCIS may accord them less weight. 
Third, the submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of 
eligibility; USCIS may, as above, evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the 
alien's eligibility. USCIS may even give less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated, in accord 
with other information or is in any way questionable. See id. at 795; see also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N 
Dec. 500, 502 n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as 
to "fact"). See also Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure 
Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 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). In 2010, the Kazarian court reiterated that the 
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. 
Ultimately, the content of the letters themselves is not persuasive. In addition to using similar language, 
the letters from Dr. and Dr. also focus on the originality and potential application of the 
petitioner's work rather than explaining how it has already impacted the field. For example, Dr. 
asserts that allowing the petitioner to work in the United Sates "would help her make this type of 
diagnostic tool available to the U.S." His example of how the petitioner has already had a significant 
impact is that she presented her results at an international conference. At issue, however, is the impact 
this work had after the petitiom~ r rlisseminated it to the field at the conference. Dr. asserts that 
the petitioner's work on "has multiple applications" to treating drug­
resistant tuberculosis without providing 
examples of how the field is already applying this work. While 
Dr. asserts that the petitioner's work with radio-complexing has resulted in otherwise impossible 
clinical trials, he does not identify any of these trials and the record does not contain letters from the 
researchers conducting these trials affirming their reliance on the petitioner's work. Finally, in his 
second letter, Dr. asserts that the petitioner's rapid tuberculosis test is commercially viable, but he 
does not provide examples of its adoption in the medical field. 
Dr. Associate Professor at the asserts that the petitioner has experience at 
esteemed organizations, and that her research record is noteworthy and significant. More specifically, 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
Dr. s letter indicates that the petitioner's work with in humans is an original contribution 
to the petitioner's field; however, he did not describe how this contribution has already impacted the 
field in a significant manner. Dr. also highlights the petitioner's work with and its 
unique potential for tuberculosis detection, but his letter did not reflect the extent to which the field has 
adopted the use of Rather, Dr. concludes that the petitioner "is adding 
knowledge 
and important potential insights for the understanding, detection and possible treatment of 
[tuberculosis]." In addition, Dr. does not indicate within his letter that he possessed knowledge 
of the petitioner's work prior to her representatives providing him with her information. Letters from 
independent experts who were not previously aware of the petitioner and her work prior to being 
requested to provide a reference letter have limited probative value in demonstrating the petitioner's 
impact in the field. 
In response to the director's RFE, the petitioner rovided an undated letter from Dr. 
Assistant Professor at _ Dr. asserts that the petitioner's 
radio-complexing approach to treat tuberculosis is being used globally. However the record lacks 
probative evidence to demonstrate the extent of the field's use of the petitioner's findings. For example, 
Dr. does not provide examples of institutions using the petitioner's findings and the record lacks 
letters from independent researchers building on the petitioner's work. 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. at 165. With respect to the petitioner's rapid tuberculosis 
test, Dr. states that it "can be used in developed, developing and underdeveloped countries." He 
does not, however, suggest that it is already being used globally or even nationally. 
Dr. also discusses the petitioner's work with rapid tuberculosis testing kits but did not provide 
evidence demonstrating the impact of this work in the field. Dr. ; use of the language in the 
extraordinary ability immigrant regulation to describe the petitioner 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), aff'd, 905 F. 
2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942, at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). Similarly, 
USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory assertions. 1756, Inc. v. The Attorney General of the 
United States, 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
The petitioner also relies on a May 8, 2013 email from Dr. at the 
inviting the petitioner to collaborate with the center on developing a diagnostic 
test. This email predates the filing of the petition by only a few days and the results of this 
collaboration, if it occurred, are not part of the record. An expression of interest in collaborating is not 
evidence that the petitioner has already impacted her field at a level consistent with a contribution of 
major significance. 
Finally, Dr. asserts that the petitioner was part of a team that invented a substance that can be 
inhaled, administered orally, or absorbed through the skin. Dr. did not indicate if this newlv 
invented substance was applicable to tuberculosis or to disease treatment in general. While Dr. 
asserts that the team has gained notoriety for this discovery, the letter provides no examples of 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
recognition in the field, such as use at specific locations or discussion in the professional, trade or 
general media. 
The final expert letter submitted in response to the director's RFE is from Associate 
Professor at the Dr. notes that he has cited to the petitioner's findings 
within his own book chapter, but does not explain how the petitioner has impacted his work. Dr. 
also identifies the petitioner ' s original contribution as developing a rapid and cost effective 
diagnostic method to identify tuberculosis "that will help further research on infectious diseases." Dr. 
discusses the importance of the petitioner's methodology , but stops short of explaining how this 
methodology has already impacted the petitioner's field as a whole . Rather, he asserts that her 
methodology "will help further research on infectious diseases." Potential future impacts in the field 
are not sufficient under this criterion. See 8 C.P.R.§ 103.2(b)(l), (12). 
As st::~tecl ahove_ the netitioner also claims eli2:ibilitv under this criterion based on an Indian patent, A 
. 
The petitioner was one of the patent inventors and claims this patent resulted in a frostbite cream named 
that was "accepted for use by the Indian military." The record does not contain documentary 
evidence, such as a licensing agreement, or letters from the military to support the claim that the Indian 
military purchased the rights to use the cream. The record also contains minimal evidence showing that 
thP n~tent for which the petitioner is a listed inventor resulted in the frostbite cream Dr. 
_ Head of the Department of Zoology at the asserts vaguely that the petitioner 
"made a significant contribution in creating a patented method for radiocomplexation of salbutamol, 
which was used to invent a frostbite r.n~::~m" Dr. does not explain how he has first-hand 
knowledge of how the developers of utilized the petitioner's patent. Moreover, his letter 
contained similar language to that appearing in other reference letters_ reducing the probative value of 
his letter. The petitioner's unsupported assertions relating to the cream being directly associated 
with her work do not constitute evidence. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Assoc. Comm 'r 
1998 (citing Matt er of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). Dr. 
mentions the petitioner's patent, but provides no further indication of the significance of the 
patent. 
Regarding patents, 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. ofTransp., 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. /d. The petitioner's Indian patent is through 
the Indian government and the evidence related to this patent does not indicate that it is licensed by or 
assigned to any company or other entity. The evidence is also vague and uncorroborated as to how the 
petitioner 's patent resulted in and its use by the Indian military. 
Within her appellate brief, the petitioner references unpublished AAO decisions to rebut the director's 
conclusion that expert letters cannot form the cornerstone of an extraordinary ability claim. The 
petitioner provides a copy of one such decision in support of the appeal. While the regulation at 
8 C.P.R.§ 103.3(c) provides that AAO precedent decisions are binding on all USCIS employees in the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
administration of the Act, unpublished decisions are not similarly binding. Furthermore, the AAO 
decision provided on appeal relates to a lesser immigrant classification than the one the petitioner seeks 
in this matter. In fact, the director approved the petitioner's separate petition filed in the classification at 
issue in the non-precedent decision the petitioner provides on appeal. 
An alien must have demonstrably impacted her field in order to meet this regulatory criterion. 
See Visinscaia, 2013 WL 6571822, at * 8 (upholding a finding that a ballroom dancer had not met this 
criterion because she did not demonstrate her impact in the field as a whole). The reference letters 
submitted by the petitioner discuss her research skills and abilities, but they do not provide specific 
examples of how the petitioner's work has significantly impacted the field at large or otherwise 
constitutes original contributions of major significance that have already come to fruition. 
Beyond the letters and patent, the petitioner has authored articles in her field. Published articles and 
presentations, which fall under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), are not sufficient evidence under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that they were of "major significance." Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 
1030, 1036 (91h Cir. 2009) aff'd in part 596 F.3d 1115. In 2010, 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. As evidence of the impact of her published 
work, the petitioner submitted two online articles from unidentified websites, two book chapters, an 
unpublished dissertation, three articles and what appears to be a patent application that cite the 
petitioner's published work. The petitioner also submits informal online reviews of her books from 
individuals whose identity and credentials are not apparent from the reviews. The petitioner did not 
demonstrate that this limited citation history and the informal anonymous reviews are indicative of an 
impact consistent with a contribution of major significance in the field. 
For all of the reasons discussed above, the petitioner has not submitted 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 director determined that the petitioner met the requirements of this criterion . The petitioner has 
submitted sufficient evidence to establish that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the · alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
A leading role should be apparent by its position in the overall organizational hierarchy and the role 's 
matching duties. The petitioner also has the responsibility to demonstrate that she actually performed 
the duties listed relating to the leading role. A critical role should be apparent from the petitioner's 
impact on the organization or the establishment's activities. The petitioner's performance in this role 
should establish whether the role was critical for the organization or establishment as a whole. The 
petitioner must demonstrate that the organizations or establishments (in the plural) have a distinguished 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
reputation. While neither the regulation nor precedent speak to what constitutes a distinguished 
reputation, Merriam- Webster's online dictionary defines distinguished as, "marked by eminence, 
distinction, or excellence. "3 Dictionaries are not of themselves evidence, but they may be referred to as 
aids to the memory and understanding of the court. Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304, 306 (1893). 
Therefore , it is the petitioner's burden to demonstrate that the organizations or establishments claimed 
under this criterion are marked by eminence, distinction, excellence, or an equivalent reputation. The 
petitioner must submit evidence satisfying all of these elements to meet the plain language requirements 
of this criterion. 
On aooeaL the petitioner asserts eli2ibility based on her ole with the 
in the Indian -
that the petitioner did not meet the requirements of this criterion. 
The director determined 
As evidence of her critical role for the petitioner provides the same evidence noted above 
relating to the frostbite cream However, as discussed, the petitioner did not provide probative 
evidence demonstrating the nexus between her patent and the cream. She also provides media coverage 
relating to developing technologies within the Indian government fro This evidence 
does not discuss the petitioner nor any patent relating to the petitioner, and does not provide information 
to demonstrate that the petitioner's patent led to the creation of the cream. 
Finally, a leading or critical role is ultimately experience. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(l) 
provides that evidence of experience "shall" consist of letters from the employer. The petitioner did not 
submit any letters from Instead, the petitioner relies on the letter from Dr. Head of the 
Department of Dr. ; letter contains multiple passages with 
language pertaining to a separate issue that is similar to that in other expert letters on record. For 
example, Dr. letter states: 
Her paper entitled "Comparative study of and native and roll 
of in resistant mycobacterial imaging" was so well received by the international 
scientific community that it featured in the International Symposium and Conference 
Proceedings of the This recognition clearly testifies significant 
contribution of Dr. to science ... 
The letter from Dr. states: 
Further, her work, on "Comparative study of and 
roll of in resistant mycobacterial imaging" was so well received by the 
international scientific communitv that it was featured in the International Symposium and 
Conference Proceedings of the These recognitions clearly signal 
. that Dr. work has made a significant impact on the international community ... 
3 See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/distinguished, accessed on July 1, 2014, a copy of which is 
incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 14 
The similarities diminish the probative value of these letters in the present proceedings. Cf Surinder 
Singh, 438 F.3d at 148; Mei Chai Ye, 489 F.3d at 519. In evaluating the evidence, the truth is to be 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N 
Dec. at 376. Regardless, Dr. does not discuss the petitioner's role for rather he asserts 
only that the petitioner contributed towards a patented method necessary tor the development of 
frostbite cream, which the Indian military is using. 
Furthermore, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires evidence of 
that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for "organizations or establishments" in the 
plural, which is consistent with the statutory requirement for extensive evidence. Section 
203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A)(i). As previously noted, we can infer that the 
plural language in the regulatory criteria has meaning and that federal courts have upheld USCIS' 
ability to interpret significance from whether the singular or plural is used in a regulation. See 
Maramjaya, Civ. Act. No. 06-2158 (RCL) at *12; Snapnames.com Inc., 2006 WL 3491005, at *10. As 
the petitioner only asserts eligibility based on one organization, she cannot meet the plain language 
requirements of this criterion. 
As the petitioner has not provided probative evidence relating to her claim under this criterion, she has 
not submitted evidence that meets the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
C. Summary 
The petitioner has not satisfied the antecedent regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. 
Ill. 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 have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner's appellate brief asserts the director did not ascribe sufficient evidentiary weight to the 
evidence of national acclaim. The petitioner explains: 
[Because the Kazarian court] closely followed Buletini (Buletini v. INS, 860 F. Supp. 
1222, 1231, 1234 (E.D. Mich. 1994)) in its analysis of the regulatory criteria, it is logical 
to conclude that Kazarian also meant for the final merits determination to follow 
Buletini's approach. According to both Kazarian and Buletini, the first step is to analyze 
the evidence and determine whether it meets at least three regulatory criteria of 
extraordinary ability. Once the three criteria are met, the next analytical step must be 
conducted, and Kazarian does not specify what that is. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 15 
However, the petitioner neither satisfied at least three criteria before the director, nor did she submit 
evidence satisfying three criteria on appeal. Had the petitioner submitted the requisite evidence under at 
least three evidentiary categories, in accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be 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" 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.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. While we 
conclude that the evidence is not indicative of a level of expertise consistent with the small percentage 
at the very top of the field or sustained national or international acclaim, we need not explain that 
conclusion in a final merits determination. 4 Rather, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has not 
satisfied the antecedent regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. !d. at 1122. 
The petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act and the petition 
may not be approved. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of 
Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4 
The AAO maintains de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 P.3d 143, 145 (3d 
Cir. 2004). In any future proceeding, the AAO maintains the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits determination 
as the office that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(ii). See also section 103(a)(1) of 
the Act; section 204(b) of the Act; DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); 8 C.P.R. § 2.1 
(2003); 8 C.P.R. § 103.1(f)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of Aurelio, 19 I&N Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987) (holding that 
legacy INS, now USCIS, is the sole authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa petitions) .