dismissed EB-1A Case: Sciences

(b)(6)
DATE: 
JUN 1 9 2013 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Admini strative Appeals Office (AAO ) 
20 Massachuseits Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washirwton. DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
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: 
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 AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen in 
accordance with the instructions on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The 
specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires any motion to be filed within 
30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
• 
Ron Rosenberg 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www. uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petltwn 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)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S .C. § 1153(b)(l)(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. The director also determined that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate 
that he is among that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
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)(l)(A)(i) of the Act and 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C .F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that an alien can 
establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement of a 
major, internationally recognized award . Absent the receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines 
ten categories of specific objective evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) through (x). The petitioner 
must submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory categories of evidence to 
establish the basic eligibility requirements. The director determined that the petitioner's evidence had 
met the categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), (vi), and (vii), but that the petitioner had 
failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that he is "one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of 
the field of endeavor." 
For the reasons discussed below, the AAO will uphold the director's determination that the petitioner 
has not established his eligibility for the exclusive classification sought. Specifically, while the AAO 
affirms the director 's finding that the petitioner has submitted qualifying evidence that meets the plain 
language of the authorship of scholarly articles criterion pursuant to 8 C.F.R . § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), the 
AAO withdraws the director's findings that the petitioner's evidence meets the original contributions 
of major significance criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) and the display of work at artistic 
exhibitions or showcases criterion at 8 C.F.R . § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). Accordingly, the petitioner has failed 
to demonstrate that he satisfies the antecedent regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. 
Further , as will be explained in the AAO's final merits determination , the evidence that technically 
qualifies under the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) reflects accomplishments in a 
university setting where publication is expected of a Ph.D . student and postdoctoral research associate . 
Moreover, the evidence submitted by the petitioner for the scholarly articles criterion does not rise to a 
level of accomplishment commensurate with 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. 1 As will be discussed further in the final merits 
determination , while the petitioner notes the caliber of the references who support the petition, their 
accomplishments, appointments as a director or professor, and publication records only reinforce the 
AAO's conclusion that the top of the petitioner's field is far higher than the level he has achieved. 
1 
The legal authority for this two-step analysis will be discussed at length below. 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
I. Law 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are 
aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if--
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences , arts, education, 
business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or 
international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the 
field through extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization 
Service (INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for 
individuals seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 101 st Cong., 2d 
Sess. 59 (1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). The term "extraordinary ability" 
refers only to those individuals in that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor. !d.; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that 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, internationally 
recognized award) or through meeting at least three of the following ten categories of evidence: 
(i) Documentation of the alien's receipt oflesser 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; 
(b)(6)
Page4 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field; 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional 
or major trade publications or other major media; 
(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases; 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations 
or establishments that have a distinguished reputation; 
(ix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field; or 
(x) Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a 
petition filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 P.3d 1030 (91h Cir. 2009) aff'd in part 
596 P.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 201 0). 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? With respect to the criteria at 8 C.P.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." !d. 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)." !d. at 1122 (citing to 
8 C.P.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.P.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.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Only aliens whose achievements have garnered 
"sustained national or international acclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary ability" 
visa. 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A)(i). 
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). 
(b)(6)
Page 5 
!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 April 5, 2011, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary 
ability as a medicinal research scientist. The petitioner received a Master of Science degree in 
Chemistry from the in August 1999 and a Ph.D. in 
Chemistry from the in December 2007. At the time of filing 
the petition, the petitioner was working as a Senior Scientist and Manager with 
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 receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The director discussed the evidence submitted for this regulatory criterion and found that the 
petitioner failed to establish his eligibility. On appeal, the petitioner does not contest the director's 
findings for this criterion or offer additional arguments. The AAO, therefore, considers this issue to 
be abandoned. Sepulveda v. US 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) (plaintiffs 
claims found to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO). Accordingly, the 
petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, 
as judged by recogniz ed national or international experts in their disciplines or 
fields. 
The director discussed the evidence submitted for this regulatory criterion and found that the 
petitioner failed to establish his eligibility. On appeal, the petitioner does not contest the director's 
findings for this criterion or offer additional arguments. The AAO, therefore , considers this issue to 
be abandoned. Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1228 n.2; Hristov, 2011 WL 4711885, at *9. Accordingly, 
the petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any 
necessary translation. 
3 On appeal, the petitioner does not claim to meet any of the regulatory categories of evidence not discussed in this 
decision . Therefore, the AAO has not considered whether the petitioner meets the remaining categories of evidence. 
(b)(6)
Page 6 
In general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be about the petitioner and, as 
stated in the regulations, be printed in professional or major trade publications or other major media . 
To qualify as major media, the publication should have significant national or international distribution. 
Some newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally serve a particular locality but would qualify 
as major media because of significant national distribution, unlike small local community papers. 4 
The petitioner submitted copies of various research articles that cite to his work. Articles which cite 
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 his 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 ... relating to the alien's work 
in the field." Thus, an article that briefly mentions the petitioner but is "about" someone or something 
else cannot qualify under the plain language of this regulation. See Noroozi v. Napolitano, 11 CV 
8333 PAE, 2012 WL 5510934 at *1, *9 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2012); also see generally 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 or a character within a show are not about the performer). It cannot be credibly 
asserted that the submitted articles are "about" the petitioner. The submitted articles do not discuss the 
petitioner's standing in the field or any other information so as to be considered published material 
about him as required by this regulatory criterion. Moreover, the AAO notes that the submitted 
articles similarly referenced numerous other authors. The material citing to the petitioner's work is 
more relevant to the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) and will be addressed there. 
Accordingly, 
the petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field. 
The AAO withdraws the director's finding that the petitioner meets this regulatory criterion. The 
plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires "[e]vidence of the alien's 
original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major 
significance in the field." [Emphasis added.) Here, the evidence must be reviewed to see whether it 
rises to the level of original scientific or scholarly contributions "of major significance in the field." 
The phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, it has some meaning. Silverman v. 
Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 51 F. 3d 28, 31 (3 rct Cir. 1995) quoted in APWU v. Potter, 
343 F.3d 619, 626 (2nct Cir. Sep 15, 2003). 
The petitioner submitted various 
letters of support discussing his work. 
Emeritus Professor, Department of Chemistry, states: 
[The petitioner] completed his thesis research Under my supervision and guidance. Until 
recently, he had been with me for his post-doctoral research work. 
* * * 
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. 
(b)(6)
Page 7 
[The petitioner] was involved in the synthesis of natural product, . 
is a natural product isolated from Chinese medicinal plant, 
which shows a very good activity against estrogen-depended breast cancer. .. 
The role of estrogen in breast cancer development increases with age. [The petitioner] and 
his colleagues synthesized this compound and confirmed the activity of the synthesized 
. which is almost 10-fold increase than the 
., the first generation of He is the first one 
to show these results which will be the landmark in the field of Cancer related diseases. This 
is the ground breaking knowledge in the field of Cancer Research. These data are published 
in the well-known scientific journal, which is 
getting lots of citations for these key results. We are hoping there will be lots of 
development in the pharmaceutical field because of the entry of these breathtaking data. 
* * * 
Furthermore, [the petitioner] was involved in the development of 
which is a steroid molecule for the treatment of women's diseases like endometriosis. 
Currently there is no therapy that is known to completely cure endometriosis. Hoping this 
drug will take care of certain part of patient's pain. 
asserts that the petitioner showed "results which will be the landmark in the field of 
Cancer related diseases" and that petitioner's work represents "ground breaking knowledge in the 
field of Cancer Research," but 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). 
fails to provide specific examples of how the petitioner's findings have already been utilized in the 
pharmaceutical industry or otherwise constitute original scientific contributions of major 
significance in the field. Instead, states that he is "hoping there will be lots of 
development in the pharmaceutical field because of the entry of these breathtaking data." In 
addition, with regard to there is no evidence showing that the petitioner 
was an originator of this progesterone receptor modulator. While the petitioner may have helped 
test in studies conducted at there is no evidence showing that the petitioner's 
original work was of major significance in the field. states that he is "hoping this drug 
will take care of certain part of patient's pain," but there is no evidence showing that the petitioner's 
specific work on rises to the level of an original contribution of major significance in the 
field. 
In the preceding instances, comments on the future promise of the petitioner's research 
and the impact that may someday result from petitioner's work, rather than how the petitioner's past 
research already qualifies as a contribution of major significance in the field. 
assertion that the petitioner's research results "will be the landmark in the field" and his expressions 
of hope regarding the future impact of the petitioner's work are not adequate to establish that the 
petitioner's findings are already recognized as major contributions in the field. Eligibility must be 
established at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 
49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). A petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner 
becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Comm'r 
1998). That decision further provides, citing Matter of Bardouille, 18 I&N Dec. 114 (BIA 1981 ), 
(b)(6)
Page 8 
that USCIS cannot "consider facts that come into being only subsequent to the filing of a petition." 
!d. at 176. There is no documentary evidence showing that the petitioner's original work has 
already resulted in successful pharmaceutical treatments, that his presented findings have been 
heavily cited by independent researchers, or that his work otherwise equates to original scientific 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
Faculty member at 
Advisor, Chief Minister, Government of 
, states: 
India, and an Adjunct 
[The petitioner] joined l _ laboratory for his doctoral study under my guidance 
in 2003. During his graduate study he had been worked [sic] on several projects from 
handling more debated mechanistic pathway for reactions to 
cancer related project where molecule under research went for clinical trial. This molecule 
is which found to be a potent inhibitor of the enzyme and tested 
against breast cancer during these clinical trials. . . . This work has been published in 
1 ,vhich is highly reputed journal in the scientific 
community. 
comments on the petitioner's doctoral research at but there is no documentary 
evidence showing that the petitioner's work was of major significance in the field. While the 
petitioner's Ph.D. research under the supervision of was no doubt of value, it can be 
argued that any research must be shown to be original and present some benefit if it is to receive 
funding and attention from the scientific community. Any Ph.D. thesis or postdoctoral research, in 
order to be accepted for graduation, publication, presentation, or funding, must offer new and useful 
information to the existing pool of knowledge. It does not follow that every scientist who performs 
original research that adds to the general pool of knowledge has inherently made a contribution of 
"major significance" to the field as a whole. 
Associate Professor of Organic Chemistry, states: 
[The petitioner] entered the Chemistry graduate program at in the fall of 2000 . . . . He 
eventually joined the research group of my colleague wherein his Ph.D. 
work focused on the total synthesis of anti-cancer agent _ and also a number of 
other pharmacologically-active small molecules. [The petitioner's] graduate work and 
output was of the highest quality and he distinguished himself as a highly determined and 
productive graduate student, publishing four peer-reviewed papers. 
With regard to comments regarding the petitioner's 
published work, the regulations contain a separate criterion regarding the authorship of scholarly 
articles. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). The AAO will not presume that evidence relating to or even 
meeting the scholarly articles criterion is presumptive evidence that the petitioner also meets this 
criterion. The regulatory criteria are separate and distinct from one another. Because separate 
criteria exist for authorship of scholarly articles and original contributions of major significance, 
USCIS clearly does not view the two as being interchangeable. To hold otherwise would render 
meaningless the statutory requirement for extensive evidence or the regulatory requirement that a 
petitioner meet at least three separate criteria. Publications and presentations are not sufficient 
evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that they were of "major significance." 
(b)(6)
Page 9 
Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d at 1036. 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. Thus, there is no presumption that every published article or 
conference presentation is a contribution of major significance; rather, the petitioner must document 
the actual impact of his article or presentation. 
The petitioner submitted citation evidence reflecting an aggregate of 41 cites to his body of research 
work. Three of the submitted citations are self-cites by the petitioner's coauthors and 
Self-citation is a normal, expected practice. Self-citation cannot, however, 
demonstrate the response of independent researchers. The AAO notes that the number of 
independent citations per article is minimal to moderate. For instance, the submitted documentation 
reflects that none of the petitioner's articles was independently cited to more than 17 times. 
Specifically: 
1. 
independently cited to once; 
2. "Template-directed 
~ 
3. "Synthesis of 
agents" 
times (plus one self-citation by · 
was 
: development and application to the total synthesis of 
was independently cited to 17 times; 
and related compounds as potential chemopreventive 
was independently cited to riine 
; and 
4. ' Compounds in Cancer Chemoprevention" 
was independently cited to eleven times (plus two self-citations by 
Merely submitting documentation reflecting that the petitioner's work has been cited by others in 
their published work is insufficient to establish eligibility for this criterion without documentary 
evidence reflecting that the petitioner's work has been of "major significance in the field." 
Generally, the number of citations is reflective of the petitioner's original findings and that the field 
has taken some interest to the petitioner's work. It is not an automatic indicator that the petitioner's 
work has been of major significance in the field. The petitioner has not established that the minimal 
to moderate number of independent cites per article for his published work is indicative of original 
scientific contributions of major significance in the field. 
, states: 
Under my guidance, [the petitioner] published a paper in , which is considered 
to be one of the best journals for the publication of research in chemistry. Also, 
he presented his work at a L Conference for Chemistry in 2003 
. 
. . . Subsequently, [the petitioner] has proved himself as a Medicinal Scientist and has 
published several papers and presented his results during the National meetings in the field 
of Cancer Chemistry. 
comments on the article that he coauthored with the petitioner in but there 
is no documentary evidence showing that their published findings were of major significance in the 
field. According to the citation evidence submitted by the petitioner, the article in ) • was 
(b)(6)
Page 10 
independently cited to only once since its publication in 2004. The petitioner has not established 
that this single citation is indicative of a scientific contribution of major significance in the field. In 
addition, states that the petitioner has presented his work at the Research 
Conference and at national meetings in the field of cancer chemistry. The AAO notes that many 
professional fields regularly hold meetings and symposia to present new work, discuss new 
findings, and to network with other professionals. These conferences are promoted and sponsored 
by professional associations, businesses, educational institutions, and government agencies. 
Participation in such events, however, does not equate to original contributions of major 
significance in the field. There is no documentary evidence showing that any of the petitioner's 
specific conference presentations have significantly impacted the field, or otherwise rise to the level 
of contributions of major significance in the field. While presentation of the petitioner's work 
demonstrates that his findings were shared with others and may be acknowledged as original 
contributions based on their selection for presentation, the AAO is not persuaded that presentations 
of the petitioner's work at various scientific conferences are sufficient evidence establishing that his 
work is of "major significance" in the field as a whole and not limited to the engagements in which 
his work was presented. The petitioner has failed to establish, for example, the impact or influence 
of his presentations beyond those in attendance so as to establish that his work was of major 
significance in the field. 
further states: 
During his Ph.D. training, [the petitioner] carried out the first total synthesis of a natural 
product, which is a very good This was a milestone in his 
research as this synthetic compound, showed promising results towards the 
treatment of breast cancer in post-menopausal women. It is hoped that this drug will clear 
the clinical trials such that women with estrogen-sensitive breast cancer can benefit from it. . 
. . [The petitioner] published his results and data in the 
a high visibility journal in the pharmaceutical research area. With this finding of 
a drug molecule for the treatment of breast cancer, I have high expectations from [the 
petitioner] in the field of 
asserts that the petitioner's work on " showed promising results towards the 
treatment of breast cancer in post-menopausal women." In addition, expresses hope that 
the "drug will clear the clinical trials such that women with estrogen-sensitive breast cancer can 
benefit from it," but there is no documentary evidence showing that the petitioner's findings had 
already been implemented as a treatment method or that his work otherwise equated to a scientific 
contribution of major significance in the field at the time of filing the petition. As previously 
discussed, eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 8 C.P.R.§ 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter 
of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. A petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner 
becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. at 175. also 
comments on the petitioner's article in the According to 
the citation evidence submitted by the petitioner, his article entitled _ 
· ., has been independently cited to less 
than ten times since its publication in 2006. The petitioner has not established that this level of 
citation is indicative of a scientific contribution of major significance in the field. 
continues: 
(b)(6)
Page 11 
[The petitioner] also learned the technique of single X-ray _ _ . Unusually for 
an Organic Chemist, he became an expert in this analytical technique and solved numerous 
unknown structures of chemical compounds for the different research groups of University. 
This skill is both a great advantage to himself in his work with different types of known and 
unknown compounds and a considerable benefit to his colleagues and collaborators. 
comments on the petitioner's expertise with the technique of single X-ray 
but assuming the petitioner's research skills are unique, the classification sought was not designed 
merely to alleviate skill shortages in a given field. In fact, that issue properly falls under the 
jurisdiction of the Department of Labor through the alien employment certification process. See 
Matter of New York State Department of Transportation , 22 I&N Dec. 215, 221 (Comm'r 1998). 
Professor, Department of Chemistry, .___ _____ ___. states: 
[The petition~r] was a graduate student at earlier in the decade. At the time, he worked 
for two very prominent organic chemists, l During 
this period he also came forward to train with me in doing X-ray on small 
molecules of importance in organic and medicinal chemistry . [the petitioner] demonstrated 
consistently that he is an excellent organic chemist and became very skilled in X-ray work, 
also. 
* * * 
His skills as an organic synthetic chemist will contribute significantly in this work, and he 
has qualifications well beyond the minimum that is needed for a position that requires such 
skills. In addition, since he is also trained in x-ray , he possesses a second set 
of skills that are very rare to find in one individual. 
As shown in his resume, he has published in substantial journals, using both his background 
in organic chemistry and in 
In the same manner \ as comments on the petitioner 's skills as an organic 
synthetic chemist and his research background. Once again, assuming the petitioner's research 
skills are unique, the classification sought was not designed merely to alleviate skill shortages in a 
given field. In fact, that issue properly falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor 
through the alien employment certification process. See Matter of New York State Department of 
Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. at 221. In addition, states that the petitioner "has published 
in substantial journals." The petitioner, however, has not established that the minimal to moderate 
number of independent cites per article for his published work is indicative of original scientific 
contributions of major significance in the field. The petitioner's field, like most science, is 
research-driven, and there would be little point in publishing findings that did not add to the general 
pool of knowledge in the field. As previously discussed, the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
requires that the petitioner's contributions not only be original but of "major significance" in the 
field. 
(b)(6)
Page 12 
, Professor and Head, Department of Chemistry, states: 
As an organic chemist, [the petitioner] synthesized the naturally available prenylated 
flavonoid, . This molecule was selected for further development by the 
program. was designed by to expedite the development of 
compounds of special interest as promising pharmaceutical agents. In order to recognize the 
importance of this work, one has to appreciate the fact that chooses only 10 
compounds a year for further development out of thousands investigated annually. 
Historically , compounds of interest chosen by have often been developed into 
commercially available drugs. Pharmaceutical drug development takes years of 
experimentation. To have a record of synthesizing a molecule of that im ortance, as 
recorded in [the petitioner's] publication in the ts 
an extraordinary achievement. Furthermore , was found to be a potent 
inhibitor of the This enzyme is an important target in treating post­
menopausal breast cancer, which is the leading cause of mortality among American women. 
[The petitioner] has also done research on cystic fibrosis at , where 
he has contributed significantly towards finding a cure for this devastating disease .... 
During his stay at he synthesized more than 300 compounds in search of the right 
candidate for a drug to treat cystic fibrosis. This large amount of research work in medicinal 
chemistry by [the petitioner] has contributed significantly towards the goal of finding a 
treatment for this terrible disease. 
states that the petitioner "synthesized the naturally available prenylated flavonoid, 
' and that "the molecule was selected for further development ," but there is no 
evidence demonstrating that the petitioner's specific findings had already resulted in a 
commercially successful drug or that they were otherwise of major significance in the field at the 
time of filing. Once again, eligibility must be established at the time of filing the petition . 8 C.F .R. 
§ 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak , 14 I&N Dec. at 49. A petition cannot be approved at a 
future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N 
Dec. at 175. According to the citation evidence submitted by the etitioner, his article in 
entitled . 
_ has been independently cited to only nine times since its 
publication in 2006. The petitioner has not established that this level of citation rises to the level of 
an original contribution of major signific ance in the field. In addition, comments on the 
petitioner's "research on cystic fibrosis at but there is no documentary 
evidence showing that the petitioner's work has resulted in a successful drug treatment for cystic 
fibrosis or that the petitioner's original work was otherwise of major significance in the field. 
_j Senior Research Chemist , states: 
[The petitioner's] expertise and qualifications in the area of medicinal chemistry is way 
above than the average person working in the same field. 
* * * 
(b)(6)
Page 13 
[The petitioner] has made significant contributions in excess of his peers. In addition to the 
reputation he possesses, [the petitioner's] experimental skills make him a valuable 
contributor in this field. Such skills are not easily found among U.S. workers. 
* * * 
[The petitioner's] expertise in the field of medicinal chemistry is well established through 
his extensive pharmaceutical research and publications. 
* * * 
[The petitioner] joined my group at . Biosciences in January of 2008. During that 
period I was a section head in the medicinal chemistry at He was assigned to work 
on a SAR [Severe Acute Respiratory] project and his responsibilities 
include but were not 
limited to: synthesis, characterization and purification of specific small molecules designed 
for the treatment ofSystic [sic] Fibrosis. 
From the beginning of his career at [the petitioner] showed his passion and 
commitment to Medicinal Chemistry. I found [the petitioner] to be a very talented chemist 
on the bench, very experienced with all techniques of medicinal research. 
comments on the petitioner's expertise and qualifications in the area of medicinal 
chemistry, experimental skills, and research techniques, but fails to provide specific 
examples of how the petitioner's original work has impacted the field at a level indicative of 
contributions of major significance. As previously discussed, assuming the petitioner's research 
skills are unique, the classification sought was not designed merely to alleviate skill shortages in a 
given field. In fact, that issue properly falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor 
through the alien employment certification process. See Matter of New York State Department of 
Transportation , 22 I&N Dec. at 221. 
Manager, Research and Process Development, 
states: 
After completing my Ph.D., I joined at 
in 1999 as a postdoctoral research fellow. After completing my postdoctoral 
research studies in 2001, I joined 
* * * 
I have known [the petitioner] through his publications in the field of Cancer Research. One 
of his molecules, promises to be effective against breast-cancer treatment and 
is under further studies in clinical trials. 
* * * 
With this growth in the number of cancer cases in United States and in the world, [the 
petitioner's] research work will definitely lead to discovery and will show some hopes to the 
(b)(6)
Page 14 
people who are suffering badly. His work has been recognized in one of the most reputed 
journals, Furthermore, his review on -
compounds in showed the study on the mechanisms 
by which these compounds act as chemopreventive agents. 
* * * 
[The petitioner's] study at is again fundamental research work where he was 
handling different antidotes against poisoning nerve agents which constituent a persistent 
threat for the population. There are several antidotes introduced during the last century such 
as but sadly their strength to counteract the acute toxic effects of 
these nerve agents is rather insufficient. 
states that "promises to be effective against breast-cancer treatment and is 
under further studies in clinical trials." While the AAO does not dispute the originality of the 
petitioner's research at as well as the fact that the field has taken some notice of his work, 
there is no evidence demonstrating that petitioner's work was of major significance in the field at 
the time of filing the petition. Rather, speculates about how the petitioner's findings may 
result in an effective breast cancer treatment at some point in the future. Eligibility, however, must 
be established at the time of filing the petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter ofKatigbak, 14 
I&N Dec. at 49. A petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible 
under a new set of facts. Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. at 175. In addition, comments 
on the petitioner's articles in _ 
According to the citation evidence submitted by the petitioner , neither of the preceding 
articles has been independently cited to more than eleven times since their publication in 2006 and 
2007. The petitioner has not established that this level of citation is indicative of a scientific 
contribution of major significance in the field. also comments on the petitioner's research 
at where the petitioner handled different antidotes against poisoning nerve agents, but 
there is no documentary evidence showing that the petitioner's original work was of major 
significance in the field. 
, a phannaceutical consultant, states: 
I became acquainted with [the petitioner] ... in 2007 at 
President of 
* * * 
where I was the Vice 
[The petitioner] was assigned to several synthetic medicinal chemistry projects contracted 
by our biotechnology company clients. These projects were related to new drug discovery 
and development. He used his training and talent to design compound structures and their 
synthetic pathways to personally prepare novel and biologically active compounds in our 
laboratories. Many of the compounds he synthesized demonstrated promising biological 
activities to be selected for further investigation in the long and tedious new drug 
development process. 
(b)(6)
Page 15 
comments on the petitioner's "promising" work at Biosciences synthesizing 
compounds for various clients, but fails to provide specific examples of how the 
petitioner's original work substantially impacted the biotechnology industry or was otherwise of 
major significance in the field at the time of filing. As previously discussed, eligibility must be 
established at the time of filing the petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 
I&N Dec. at 49. A petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible 
under a new set of facts. Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. at 17 5. 
, a patent attorney with L states: ---------------------....J 
My law firm has been retained to provide patent related strategic expertise, and to prepare 
U.S. and international patent applications on behalf of" 
[The petitioner] is a critical part of the research and development team at ,, At present, 
[the petitioner] is named on 61 patentable invention disclosures, 15 of which are for 
important drug discoveries relating to diabetes and inflammation diseases which afflict 
millions of people in the United States. The remaining 46 patents are for valuable new 
herbal products that treat a variety of other diseases and conditions. Development of these 
drugs and other products may bring relief to millions of sufferers. 
[The petitioner] is currently the Principal Medicinal Scientist for . He has extensive and 
valuable knowledge and expertise in drug discovery processes for a number of important 
diseases. His presence and assistance is necessary if J is to proceed with the 
development and commercialization of the potentially valuable new drugs and treatments 
described therein. 
The petitioner submitted a list of his patents in preparation at , but there is no documentary 
evidence showing that a U.S. patent was granted for any of the inventions. Regardless, while 
issuance of a patent recognizes the originality of an idea, it does not demonstrate that the petitioner 
has made a contribution of major significance in the field through his development of the 
innovation. 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 Department of Transportation, 22 
I&N Dec. at 221 n. 7. Rather, the significance of the innovation must be determined on a case-by­
case basis. !d. With regard to the invention disclosures coauthored by the petitioner, the petitioner 
must demonstrate that his innovations have demonstrably impacted the field as a whole or otherwise 
equated to original contributions of major significance in the field. In this instance, there is no 
documentary evidence showing that any of the inventions coauthored by the petitioner have resulted 
in successful drug treatments available to the public or that the petitioner's original work was 
otherwise of major significance in the field. 
President and Chief Executive Officer, ., states: 
[The petitioner] has been a creative Research Scientist where he brings his Medicinal as well 
as Synthetic Organic Chemistry skills and talent. He has been showing dedication and 
commitment in the natural product based drug discovery research. He is knowledgeable in 
establishing the compound library using his creative mind and knowledge in synthetic 
(b)(6)
Page 16 
organic chemistry. He has been assisting us on different grants to raise funds for the research 
program. Also he is writing several provisional patents applications based on natural product 
drug discovery. 
describes the petitioner's work for , but he fails to provide specific examples of how 
the petitioner's original work for the company has impacted the field at a level indicative of 
contributions of major significance. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires that the petitioner's contributions be "of major significance in the field" 
rather than limited to a single research institution or employer. 
Registration Manager, , states: 
Over the last 10 years, [the petitioner] has worked as a scientist in several laboratories and 
has demonstrated his talent by synthesizing hundreds of different compounds that can be 
targeted for the treatment of diabetes, inflammation, obesity and cancer. 
* * * 
[The petitioner] is proficient in several instrumentation including 
[The petitioner] also understands the vanous aspects of 
pharmaceutical research that play a key role in the new drug discovery. 
I firmly believe [the petitioner] has achieved a high level of competency that can be used to 
discover new pharmaceutical products. 
comments on the petitioner's talent for synthesizing compounds and the petitioner's 
research instrumentation proficiency, but fails to provide specific examples of how 
the petitioner's original work has substantially impacted the pharmaceutical industry or was 
otherwise of major significance in the field. Once again, assuming the petitioner's research skills 
are unique, the classification sought was not designed merely to alleviate skill shortages in a given 
field. That issue properly falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor through the alien 
employment certification process. See Matter of New York State Department of Transportation, 22 
I&N Dec. at 221. 
states: 
I became aware of [the petitioner] when he contacted me to support his permanent residency 
application. 
I have reviewed [the petitioner's] publication in m 
2007 where he published a survey on ' 
This manuscript provides detailed information about sulphur­
compounds from natural sources and how they are useful to prevent cancer. He also 
(b)(6)
Page 17 
explained the mechanistic pathways for how these organosulphur compounds fight cancer 
cells. 
* * * 
Research scientists like [the petitioner] have developed interest in a subject that other 
scientists have overlooked. The C-S bond formation is one of the major challenges in the 
field of organic chemistry. 
states that the petitioner's article in "provides 
detailed information about sulphur-compounds from natural sources and how they are useful to 
prevent cancer" and explains "the mechanistic pathways for how these organosulphur compounds 
fight cancer cells," but there is no documentary evidence demonstrating that the petitioner's original 
work has resulted in successful drug treatments available to the public, that the petitioner's findings 
on C-S bond formation have substantially influenced the work of other medicinal scientists 
throughout the field, or that the petitioner's research results were otherwise of major significance in 
the field. According to the citation evidence submitted by the petitioner, his article in 
has been independently cited to eleven times since its publication in 2007. 
The petitioner has not established that this level o(citation is indicative of a scientific contribution 
of major significance in the field. 
Alumnae of 
states: 
Department of Chemistry, 
I know of[the petitioner] through his publications in the field of cancer research. His work 
on the synthesis of in 2006 was very useful in the field of cancer related 
diseases. He showed the synthesis of the natural roduct , which is a natural 
product and confirmed the activity as an . Because of his report and 
many more publications on abyssinone family of compounds, we are investigating these 
compounds in more detail and we have evaluated their ability to inhibit cancer progression. 
The initial phase of our study is complete and we have published this work in 
[The petitioner's] publication on geared 
the community to explore this naturally occurring flavanone in the field of cancer related 
research and I hope that the future holds new therapies based on this compound. 
asserts that the petitioner's research report "and many more publications on _ 
family of compounds" have led to further investigation of the compounds' ability to inhibit cancer 
progression, but there is no evidence demonstrating that the petitioner's specific findings had 
already resulted in a commercially successful drug or that they were otherwise of major significance 
in the field at the time of filing the petition. expresses "hope that the future 
holds new therapies" based on the _ compound. As previously discussed, eligibility 
must be established at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N 
Dec. at 49. A petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible 
under a new set of facts. Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. at 175. 
The opinions of the petitioner's references are not without weight and have been considered by the 
AAO. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert 
(b)(6)
Page 18 
testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 r&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). USCrS is, 
however, ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility 
for the benefit sought. !d. The submission of reference letters supporting the petition is not 
presumptive evidence of eligibility; users may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether 
they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795-796; see also Matter of V-K-, 24 r&N Dec. 500, 
n.2 (BrA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not 
purport to be evidence as to "fact"). 
Thus, the content of the references' statements and how they became aware of the petitioner's 
reputation are important considerations. Even when written by independent experts, letters solicited 
by an alien in support of an immigration petition are of less weight than preexisting, independent 
evidence that one would expect of a medicinal research scientist who has made original 
contributions of major significance in the field. Without additional, specific evidence showing that 
the petitioner's original work has been unusually influential, widely implemented throughout his 
field, or has otherwise risen to the level of contributions of major significance, the AAO cannot 
conclude that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly . articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
The petitioner has documented his authorship of scholarly articles and, thus, has submitted qualifying 
evidence pursuant to 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). Accordingly, the AAO affirms the director's finding 
that the petitioner's evidence meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 
The AAO withdraws the director's finding that the petitioner meets this regulatory criterion. The 
petitioner submitted documentation showing that he presented his work at various scientific 
conferences and meetings (such as the 
as evidence for this regulatory criterion. The petitioner's field is in the sciences 
rather than the arts. The interpretation that 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) is limited to the visual arts is 
longstanding and has been upheld by a federal district court. Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-
ECR-RJJ at *1, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding an interpretation that performances by a 
performing artist do not fall under 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii)). As the petitioner is not a visual 
artist and has not created tangible pieces of art that were on display at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases, he has not submitted qualifying evidence that meets the plain language requirements of 
the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). The ten criteria in the regulations are designed to 
cover different areas; not every criterion will apply to every occupation. The petitioner's 
presentations at scientific conferences and meetings are more relevant to the preceding "authorship 
of scholarly articles" criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), a criterion that he has already met. 
Moreover, it is neither arbitrary, capricious, nor an abuse of discretion to conclude that presentations at 
scientific conferences do not qualify as display of the petitioner's work at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases pursuant to 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1122. Accordingly, the 
petitioner has not established that he meets the plain language requirements of this regulatory 
criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
(b)(6)
Page 19 
The petitioner submitted letters of support discussing his graduate research at and his 
postdoctoral research at both The record adequately demonstrates 
that has a distinguished reputation, but there is no evidence showing that 
enjoys a similar reputation. The next issue to be determined is whether the petitioner performed in 
a leading or critical role for . In general, a leading role is evidenced 
from the role itself, and a critical role is one in which the alien is responsible for the success or standing 
of the organization. While the petitioner performed admirably on the projects to which he was 
assigned, there is no evidence demonstrating that his temporary, subordinate roles were leading or 
critical for . 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 institutions where he studied and wqrked. The AAO notes that one 
of the petitioner's roles at was that of a graduate student. Moreover, the petitioner's 
postdoctoral appointments at and were designed to provide specialized 
research experience and training in his field of endeavor. The documentation submitted by the 
petitioner does not differentiate his roles from those of the other researchers and permanent faculty 
(such as professors and department heads) so as to demonstrate his leading role, and fails to establish 
that he was responsible for and success or standing to a degree consistent 
with the meaning of"critical role." 
The petitioner also submitted letters of support and other documentation indicating that he worked 
for There is no documentary evidence 
showing that the preceding companies have a distinguished reputation. In addition, the petitioner 
failed to submit evidence demonstrating that his role was leading or critical to the preceding 
companies as a whole. For instance, the petitioner did not submit an organizational chart or other 
evidence documenting where his positions fell within the general hierarchy of 
. The submitted evidence fails to differentiate the petitioner 
from the companies' other scientists and managers so as to demonstrate his leading role, and fails to 
establish that he was responsible for the companies' success or standing to a degree consistent with the 
meaning of"critical role." 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets 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. 
The petitioner submitted an August 20, 2007 letter from . offering him the 
"position of Postdoctoral associate at an annual salary of $35,000." The petitioner also submitted a 
December 10, 2007 letter from offering him a ''base salary of $65,000 per 
year." In addition, the petitioner submitted his 2008 Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, from 
reflecting gross pay of $66,977.36. The petitioner also submitted his 2009 
Forms W-2, Wage and Tax Statements, from reflecting earnings of $14,802.00, and from 
reflecting gross pay 
of$29,073.58 . 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner asserts that 
agreed to pay him "$72,000 per year," but the petitioner failed to submit evidence from 
(such as payroll records, a job offer letter, or Form W-2) to support his assertion. Going 
on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the 
(b)(6)
Page 20 
burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) 
(citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Cornm'r 1972)). The 
petitioner also submitted salary information from www.salaryquest.com stating that the "Average 
Salary" for "Scientist Organic Chemistry" is $64,800. The information from www.salaryquest.com 
included a sampling of only eight salaries connected with H1-B nonimmigrant visa applications. 
The petitioner highlighted the four lowest salaries for Organic Chemistry Scientist positions offered 
in , CA and CA. The petitioner, however, must submit evidence showing that 
he has earned a high salary or other significantly high remuneration "in relation to others in the field," 
not simply a salary that is above average for a small sampling of positions that he selected from his 
locality. The petitioner's reliance on salary comparisons limited to H1-B nonimmigrant visa 
positions offered in CA and CA is not an appropriate basis for comparison in 
demonstrating that his earnings constitute a "high salary" relative to "others in the field." 
The director's decision cited to wage data from the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor 
Statistics indicating that the top ten percent of those in the petitioner's occupation earned 
"approximately $146,280" per year. 
On appeal, the petitioner states: 
The salary that I mentioned in my application, it was during this Greatest Recession. Also it 
was a start-up company where the funding was very minimal. . . . What I would like to 
argue here, this is totally depends [sic] on the situation, place and time. Big companies like 
where people are working on the same position must be earning high 
because of the company's reputation, not because of that person's extraordinary capability 
or his role in that company. People at the same position in small company in fact are 
working hard, they need to wear different roles of hats but for the small salary, and even 
though your role is critical. 
The petitioner's assertions are not persuasive in demonstrating that he has commanded a high salary 
or other significantly high remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. The petitioner 
must present evidence of objective earnings data showing that he has earned a "high salary" or 
"significantly high remuneration" in comparison with others in his occupation during the same time 
period. See Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) (considering professional 
golfer's earnings versus other PGA Tour golfers); see also Grimson v. INS, 934 F. Supp. 965, 968 
(N.D. Ill. 1996) (considering NHL enforcer's salary versus other NHL enforcers); Muni v. INS, 891 
F. Supp. 440, 444-45 (N. D. Ill. 1995) (comparing salary ofNHL defensive player to salary of other 
NHL defensemen). The evidence submitted by the petitioner does not establish that he has received a 
high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services in relation to others in the field. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
Summary 
The petitioner has failed to demonstrate his receipt of a major, internationally recognized award or to 
satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of three categories of evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
B. Final Merits Determination 
(b)(6)
Page 21 
The AAO will next conduct a final merits determination that considers all of the evidence in the 
context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a "level of expertise indicating that the 
individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor," 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2); and (2) "that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and that 
his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." Section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the 
Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). See also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Many of the deficiencies in the 
documentation submitted by the petitioner have already been addressed in the AAO's preceding 
discussion of the categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) and (v)- (ix). 
With regard to the documentation submitted for the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) , 
the director's decision has already addressed why the documentation submitted by the petitioner 
does not rise to the level of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence 
in the field. Moreover, the petitioner has failed to establish his receipt of "prizes or awards" that are 
indicative of or consistent with sustained national acclaim or a level of expertise indicating that he 
is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top ofhis field. 
In regard to the documentation submitted for the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), as 
discussed by the director, the evidence submitted by the petitioner failed to demonstrate that he 
holds memberships in associations that require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in the field. The petitioner has not 
established that his memberships are indicative of or consistent with sustained national acclaim, or a 
level of expertise indicating that he is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of 
his field. 
Regarding the documentation submitted for the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(iii), the 
petitioner submitted evidence indicating that his 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 his work. 
The petitioner has not established that the evidence submitted for the category of evidence at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(iii) is indicative of or consistent with sustained national acclaim or a level of 
expertise indicating that he is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of his 
field. 
With regard to the documentation submitted for the categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(v) 
and (vi), the petitioner has documented his co-authorship of four published journal articles with his 
superiors at from 2003 until the petition's filing date. The petitioner, however, has not 
established that his publication record, conference presentations, and original research contributions 
are indicative of sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of his field. 
Demonstrating that the petitioner's work was "original" in that it did not merely duplicate prior 
research is not useful in setting the petitioner apart through a "career of acclaimed work." H.R. Rep. 
No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). That page (59) also says that "an alien must (1) demonstrate 
sustained national or international acclaim in the sciences, arts, education, business or athletics (as 
shown through extensive documentation) .... " Research work that is unoriginal would be unlikely to 
secure the petitioner a master's degree, let alone classification as a medicinal research scientist of 
extraordinary ability. To argue that all original research is, by definition, "extraordinary'' is to weaken 
that adjective beyond any useful meaning, and to presume that most research is ''unoriginal." In this 
case, the record does not contain sufficient evidence that the petitioner's original work had major 
(b)(6)
Page 22 
significance in the field, let alone an impact consistent with being nationally or internationally 
acclaimed as extraordinary. 
The AAO notes that the Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook (OOH), 2012-13 
Edition provides information about the nature of employment as a postsecondary teacher (professor) 
and the requirements for such a position. See http://www.bls.gov/ooh/Education-Training-and­
Library/Postsecondary-teachers.htm#tab-3, accessed on June 6, 2013, copy incorporated into the 
record of proceedings. 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, doctoral programs require graduate 
students to prepare "a doctoral dissertation, which is a paper presenting original research in the 
student's field of study." See http://www.bls.gov/ooh/Education-Training-and-Library/ 
Postsecondary-teachers.htm#tab-4, accessed on June 6, 2013, copy incorporated into the record of 
proceedings. This information reveals that original published research, whether arising from research 
at a university such as or a private employer, does not set the researcher apart from faculty in that 
researcher's field. 
Moreover, the petitioner's citation history is a relevant consideration as to whether the evidence is 
indicative of the petitioner's recognition beyond his own circle of collaborators . See Kazarian, 
596 F. 3d at 1122. The minimal to moderate number of independent cites per article at the time of 
filing the petition is not sufficient to demonstrate that the petitioner's publications have attracted a 
level of interest in his field commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim at the 
very top of the field. 
In regard to the documentation submitted for the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii), 
as previously discussed, the petitioner has not established that he has displayed his work in the field 
"at artistic exhibitions or showcases." In addition, there is no documentary evidence showing that 
any of the petitioner's specific conference presentations are frequently cited by independent 
researchers, have significantly impacted the field, or are otherwise commensurate with sustained 
national or international acclaim at the very top of the field. 
Regarding the documentation submitted for the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), as 
previously discussed, the petitioner has not established that he 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 his temporary training ositions as a graduate student and 
postdoctoral researcher were leading or critical for In addition, there is 
no evidence showing that has a distinguished reputation. Furthermore, there is 
no evidence showing that · have distinguished 
reputations or that the petitioner performed in a leading or critical role for the companies. The 
petitioner has not established that the documentation submitted for the category of evidence at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(viii) is indicative of or consistent with sustained national acclaim or a level of 
expertise indicating that he is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the 
field. 
With 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 he has earned a high salary in relation to 
others in the field. The petitioner has not demonstrated that his salary places him among that small 
(b)(6)
Page 23 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See Matter of Price, 20 I&N 
Dec. at 954; see also Skokos v. US. Dept. of Homeland Sec., 420 F. App'x at 713-14; Grimson v. 
INS, 934 F. Supp. at 968; Muni v. INS, 891 F. Supp. at 444-45. The salary evidence submitted by 
the petitioner is not indicative of or consistent with sustained national acclaim, or a level of 
expertise indicating that he is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the 
field. 
Ultimately, the evidence in the aggregate does not distinguish the petitioner as one of the small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. The petitioner, a medicinal 
research scientist, relies primarily on association memberships that have not been shown to require 
outstanding achievements, his co-authorship of four journal articles with his superiors at 
citation records for his published articles, conference presentations, invention disclosures he co­
authored at that have not been shown to have significantly impacted the field, the affirmation 
of his colleagues that he is important to the institutions where he has worked, earnings that have not 
been shown to constitute a high salary relative to others in his occupation, and the general praise in his 
reference letters. 
The AAO notes that many of the petitioner's references' credentials are far more impressive than those 
of the petitioner . For example, j states: 
I am Emeritus Professor at the in the Department of 
Chemistry from last more than 40 years and am currently actively engaged in research in the 
field of Organic Chemistry. I have published over 300 publications and received several 
awards in the same field, including ACS awards for the 
states: 
I am currently · 
largest organic chemistry institute with a staff of approximately 300 personnel. ... I formerly 
and as served as -===---' In my 
career I have published over 300 peer-reviewed articles in the field of organic and medicinal 
chemistry, am inventor on some ten patents, and have received many awards for my 
researches. In my position as a leader in the field of organic chemistry, a frequent reviewer 
for many scientific journals and of grant proposals .... 
states: 
I ... have been a Professor of Chemistry at the ~ 
I am presently the Head of the Chemistry Department at this institution. I have published 
over 120 papers, 15 book chapters, and three books . . . . I am the co-founder of the 
and have organized numerous conferences and 
symposia in this field. I am a Fellow of the a Fellow of the 
and a 
states: 
(b)(6)
Page 24 
I hold the position of Alumnae of 
Chemistry at 
Scholar, 
in Chemistry and 
in the Department of 
Honors and awards to my name include 
Fellowship, Award for Excellence 
Award. Publications to 
my name are numerous, in such journals as 
While the petitioner need not demonstrate that there is no one more accomplished than him to qualify 
for the classification sought, it appears that the very top of his field of endeavor is far above the level he 
has attained. In this case, the petitioner has not established that his achievements at the time of filing 
the petition were commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim as a medicinal 
research scientist, or with 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. 
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 have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself to 
such an extent that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim and 
to be within the small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence on record is not 
persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his 
field at a national or international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility 
pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) ofthe Act and the petition may not be approved. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be 
denied by the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the 
initial decision. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. 
Cal. 2001), a.ffd, 345 F.3d 683 (91h Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 
2004) (noting that the AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis). 
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.