dismissed EB-1A Case: Sciences

(b)(6)
DATE: NOV 2 8 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 Massachusett s 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-preceden t 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. 
;;;tz;-
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). According to 
the Form 1-140, the petitioner, who obtained her Ph.D. in proposes to work in a postdoctoral 
fellow position. 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 December 12, 2013. On 
December 19, 2013, the director issued the petitioner a request for evidence (RFE). After receiving the 
petitioner's response to the RFE, the director issued his decision on March 19, 2014. On appeal, the 
petitioner submits a brief. 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 101st 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.P.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.P.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.P.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), 
the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised legitimate concerns about the significance of the 
evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, those concerns should have been raised in a subsequent 
"final merits 
determination." Id. at 1121-22. 
The court stated that the 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)." ld. at 1122 (citing to 8 C.P.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. !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.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page4 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria2 
· The director determined the petitioner met the requirements of the judging criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and the authorship of scholarly articles at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). The 
petitioner has submitted sufficient evidence, to include a letter from a journal editor and emails 
reflecting that she has performed peer review services, to establish that she meets the judging 
criterion, and several published articles, to establish that she meets the scholarly articles criterion. 
The director discussed the evidence submitted for the membership criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) 
and the published material criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) and found that the petitioner did not 
satisfy the requirements for either criterion. On appeal, the petitioner does not contest the director's 
findings for these criteria or offer additional arguments. Therefore, the petitioner has abandoned her 
claims under both criteria. Sepulveda v. U.S. Atty 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 plaintiffs 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. On 
appeal, the petitioner contests the director's finding that she did not satisfy the contributions of major 
significance criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the director evaluated the evidence in the context of the regulatory 
definition of extraordinary ability rather than under the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v). While the petitioner is correct that the analysis under this criterion must be limited to 
the plain language of the criterion, the record supports the director's ultimate conclusion that the 
evidence does not establish that the petitioner meets the plain language requirements set forth in this 
criterion. 
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. Contributions of major significance connotes that the 
petitioner's work has significantly impacted the field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v); see also Visinscaia 
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 
v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 134 (D.D.C. Dec. 16, 2013). The petitioner must submit evidence 
satisfying all of these elements to meet the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
The director determined that the petitioner did not meet the requirements of this criterion. In addition to 
raising concerns that the director went beyond the plain language requirements of this criterion, the 
petitioner asserts on appeal that the director did not view the evidence under this criterion as a whole, 
focused on whether the contributions extended beyond the petitioner's field, and did not properly 
analyze the expert letters. The petitioner claims her contributions in her field relate to the use of 
curcumin to treat stomach ulcers, her research relating to cancer, and her research relating to influenza. 
The focus of this criterion is not how far the petitioner has risen within her field; rather, it is on the level 
of impact the petitioner's work has already effected in her field. Regardless of the field, the plain 
language of the phrase "contributions of major significance in the field" requires evidence of an impact 
beyond one's employer and clients or customers. See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 (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). 
With respect to the petitioner's concern that the director should have considered all of the petitioner's 
individual pieces of evidence as a coherent whole, rather than separately, we will review all of the 
evidence relating to this criterion in the aggregate. That said, USCIS determines the truth not by the 
quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) 
citing Matter of E-M- 20 I&N Dec. 77, 80 (Comm'r 1989). 
1. Stomach Ulcer Research 
The petitioner's appellate brief references her citation record in the context of the impact factor of the 
journal in which her articles appear. The article that the petitioner identifies as a contribution of major 
significance on appeal appeared in the . . and is titled, 
. 
. " Although the petitioner demonstrated that researchers in the 
field have cited to this article at a rate above this journal's average impact factor, she did not submit 
evidence indicating that the field has heavily relied upon this article. That other researchers cite to the 
petitioner's article at an above average rate shows that other researchers have found her work relevant to 
their own work. For example, within the citing articles the petitioner provided for the record that relate 
to her two most cited articles 
'and 
" these articles are one of 
several cited for the same proposition. Such recognition does not support the petitioner's assertion that 
her cited works amount to contributions that are of major significance in the field as she has not 
presented evidence demonstrating that the citing authors placed significant reliance on her fmdings in 
conducting their own studies. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page6 
Moreover, the expert letters, discussed below, do not describe the manner in which this article is 
influential or heavily relied upon. Although some of the experts state that the petitioner's articles are 
published in top publications, none of the experts indicates that he or she has cited to the petitioner's 
work within their own published research. Where other articles cite to the petitioner's work as 
background information about similar research and show little or no reliance on the petitioner's 
findings, the citing articles have less probative value than citations that show significant reliance or 
influence. The petitioner has not shown that her above average citation rate related to these two articles 
is indicative of a contribution of major significance in the field. 
Associate Professor of Pediatrics and Microbiology and Immunology at the 
. . , provides a detailed discussion of how the petitioner's 
research relating to curcumin, a South Asian spice, and ulcers has possible broad application in several 
areas involving the gastrointestinal field. Dr. states: 
Because inflammation is a component of many chronic diseases, the potential of 
curcumin has been examined in neoplastic, neurological, cardiovascular, pulmonary and 
metabolic disorders. The therapeutic efficacy of curcumin have been re-examined in 
animals and in humans by many research groups such as 
2005), t 2008), 
[sic] , 2010). The fact that [the petitioner's] work was 
able to elicit so much interest from other research groups shows the impact this work has 
had on the field as a whole." 
Although Dr. indicates that three research groups have re-examined the work within this 
paper, he did not state that the petitioner's work was influential in the research groups' work; he simply 
stated that these three groups had re-examined published work in which the petitioner was named as one 
of six coauthors. The petitioner provided two of these articles, which are part of the record. The first 
article titled, 
'by et 
al. cites to the petitioner's work within a group of multiple citations reflecting that these authors did not 
rely heavily on the petitioner's work as a basis for their own research. The second article titled, 
is a review article rather than a research article. 
This review article briefly discusses numerous recent studies and does not build on the petitioner's 
work. As review articles summarize the current state of research, instead of reporting a researcher's 
original findings that build on the petitioner's work, review articles do not demonstrate actual reliance 
on the petitioner's work. For example, the cite to the petitioner's work consists of one sentence, which 
is incorporated into a paragraph containing nine citations summarizing the effects of curcumin in 
multiple studies. The petitioner did not provide the 2005) article for the 
record, nor did she provide a letter from this author. The petitioner has not provided evidence 
demonstrating that other researchers that cite to her work relied on her findings to support their research 
sufficient to support her assertion that her research relating to curcumin is a contribution of major 
significance in the field. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
That the petitioner's original finding that curcumin has the potential to be an inhibitor for several 
gastrointestinal issues is important. However, the speculation that her findings have the potential to 
impact the field is not sufficient to satisfy the regulatory requirements at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). The 
impact must have already been realized within the field at the time the petitioner filed the present 
petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1), (12). Dr. also discusses the petitioner's subsequent research 
stating: "These fmdings were published in [the] _ _ in 2006 (cited 37 [times] 
since then), paving the way for additional studies connecting MMPs to gastric ulcer, for example the 
work done by 2007)." The petitioner did not provide a copy of this article, 
nor did she provide a letter from this author. Therefore, the petitioner has not submitted corroborating 
evidence to establish that she has made a contribution of major significance in her field. However, this 
is an additional instance in which an expert in the field identifies the future potential of the petitioner's 
work to have an impact in the field, but falls short of describing how the impact has already occurred as 
of the petition filing date. A petitioner must establish the elements for the approval of the petition at the 
time of filing. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1), (12). A petition may not be approved if the beneficiary was not 
qualified at the priority date, but expects to become eligible at a subsequent time. See Matter of 
Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). 
2. Cancer Research 
Regarding the claims within the expert letters that the petitioner's work is widely cited, a review of the 
citing material that the petitioner provided within the initial filing does not reflect that the authors 
heaviliy relied upon the petitioner's findings as a foundational basis for their work. The petitioner 
provided two of the articles referenced within the expert letters. Within the article titled, 
-appeanng m £ __ , the authors briefly reference the petitioner's work 
in the closing paragraphs as an alternative view. The article's conclusion cites the petitioner's work for 
the proposition that "it has been well proven ... that tumor-associated, high-density neovascularization 
was responsible for the development of tumor growth." The petitioner's article, according to the final 
paragraph, was not reporting neovascularization's responsibility for tumor growth as an original 
finding; rather, it concluded that such high density neovascularization "is blocked by tunicamycin 
through a distinct mechanism of unfolded protein response." It is not apparent from this citation of the 
petr's article that the authors are using the petitioner's original reasearch findings as a foundation for 
their own findings, which might support the petitioner's assertions that her published work appearing in 
Hepatology is indicative of a contribution of major significance within her field. 
Within the article titled, ' 
_ appearing in _ _ the 
petitioner's work is only referenced in the concluding remarks paragraph. The citing article cites to the 
petitioner's work within a footnote as another study that reported results from tunicamycin. The citation 
in context does not support the petitioner's position that these authors relied upon her findings so 
heavily that it can be considered to be a contribution of major significance in her field. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page8 
_ _ Professor of Biochemistry at the indicates in his letter that 
the petitioner has further advanced a study related to cancer treatment. Dr. who has 
coauthored multiple published articles with the petitioner, characterizes the petitioner's findings as 
extraordinary and states that her work with tunicamycin "can be considered as [a] 'hallmark' for the 
discovery of an anticancer therapeutic." Dr. _ subsequently indicates that the petitioner's 
findings pertaining to monitoring a patient receiving treatment "would protect patients' health and also 
substantially lower the treatment cost." He did not, however, specify how the field is building on the 
petitioner's work to reach this goal. He also did not clearly indicate that this hallmark in cancer 
research has resulted in any tangible advancement in the petitioner's field. Dr. _ further states 
that the petitioner "is an outstanding cell biologist who has already contributed significantly to this field 
of research." However, he did not sufficiently describe the petitioner's work as already having a 
significant impact within her field. USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory assertions. 1756, Inc. 
v. The Attorney General of the United States, 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990). 
Assistant Professor of Neurology, Biophysics and Biophysical Chemistry at 
has also worked with the petitioner and describes some of her same 
accomplishments that Dr. discusses. Dr. states: "These scientific findings regarding 
curing breast cancer with the antibiotic tunicamycin experiments, made by [the petitioner], clearly 
elucidate an innovative treatment strategy for breast cancer." Dr. does not identify any 
research building on the petitioner's work towards a treatment strategy for breast cancer. Dr. 
also indicates that the petitioner's current work on prostate cancer, gastric ulcer and influenza is an 
expansion on her previous findings and that her contributions toward these diseases "will highly help in 
curing public health not only restricted with USA but also worldwide." Future 
prospective benefits that 
the petitioner's findings may have in the field will not qualify her under this criterion. The regulation 
requires that the petitioner has already made major and significant impacts within her field. A petitioner 
must establish the elements for the approval of the petition at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1), 
(12). A petition may not be approved if the beneficiary was not qualified at the priority date, but 
expects to become eligible at a subsequent time. See Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. This 
evidence does not establish that, as of the priority date, the petitioner had contributed to her field in a 
significant manner as required by the regulation. 
Professor of Medicine at the discusses the -
petitioner's accomplishments and indicates that the petitiOner is an exceptional scienctist with 
extraordinary ability in the field of scientific research. Dr states: 
Her groundbreaking findings include the discovery that tunicamycin inhibits breast 
tumor angiogenesis through endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress-induced programmed 
cell death (apoptosis). The knowledge thus gained has been successfully translated to 
the development of a new generation breast cancer therapeutic targeting angiogenesis. 
Dr. does not explain or provide examples of research that successfully translates the petitioner's 
work towards the development of a new generation treatment for breast cancer. Dr. also 
discusses the petitioner's work relating to stomach cancers stating: "This novel work opens a new 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
avenue for gastric ulcer treatment using an alternate pathogenic mechanism involving MMPs 
signaling." Although Dr. notes that these fmdings have been published, he does not claim that 
the petitioner's findings have resulted 
in any improvements in the rate of gastric ulcer treatment or 
significant advancement towards that·goal. 
3. Citation Record 
We acknowledge that the petitioner's overall citation record exceeds an average amount; however, not 
every researcher who receives an above average amount of citations has inherently made a contribution 
of major significance to the field, as a whole. The petitioner's citation record does not approach that of 
one of her references, Director of the 
who indicates his work has been cited more than 3,400 times. 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 inAPWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 626 (2"d Cir. Sep 
15, 2003). It remains the petitioner's burden to document the actual impact of her articles. The 
regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3) contains a separate criterion regarding the authorship of published 
articles. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). If every provision of the regulation is to have meaning, USCIS 
must presume that the regulation views contributions as a separate evidentiary requirement from 
scholarly articles. Published material may be relevant to this criterion provided it is relevant and 
probative of whether or not the research discussed in the material is a contribution of major 
significance. Kazarian v. US CIS, 580 F.3d at 1036 (9
1
h Cir. 2009) aff' d in part 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 
2010). 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. 
Notably, of all the articles that the petitioner chose to provide that cite to her own work, half are review 
articles that briefly discuss numerous recent studies rather than research articles that build on the 
petitioner's work. As these review articles summarize the current state of research, instead of reporting 
a researcher's original findings that build on the petitioner's work, these review articles do not 
demonstrate actual reliance on the petitioner's work. 
We are not persuaded that such citations are reflective that the petitioner's work has been of major 
significance in the field. Furthermore, the petitioner did not submit any documentary evidence 
demonstrating that her articles have been unusually influential, such as articles that discuss in-depth the 
petitioner's findings or credit the petitioner with influencing or impacting the field. In this case, the 
petitioner's documentary evidence is not reflective of having a significant impact in the field. The 
petitioner has not established how those findings or citations of her work by others have demonstrated 
that her work has been seminal in, or have significantly contributed to her field as a whole. 
4. Journal Rankings 
The petitioner also asserts that the journal rankings in which her work is published, as well as each 
journal's impact factor are elements that should contribute to her satisfying this criterion's requirements. 
First, while it is notable that some top rated journals have published the petitioner's work, this 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
information is not sufficient to demonstrate that the petitioner's work appearing in each journal meets 
the regulatory requirements under this criterion. The petitioner still bears the burden of establishing that 
her work is commensurate with a contribution of major significance in her field. Section 291 of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Second, that a publication 
bears a high impact factor is reflective of the average citation rate of each article within a publication. It 
does not however, demonstrate the influence of any particular author within the field or how an author's 
research has had an impact within the field. Although the record shows that others in the petitioner's 
field have cited to her work at an above average rate compared to the impact factor, it lacks evidence 
that this citation rate is indicative of significant influence within the field. That the petitioner has 
published work within highly ranked journals does not necessarily demonstrate contributions that are of 
major significance. 
The petitioner provided evidence from dated February 24, 2014. This evidence 
postdates the petition filing date. A petitioner must establish the elements for the approval of the 
petition at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1), (12). A petition may not be approved if the 
petitioner was not qualified at the priority date, but expects to become eligible at a subsequent time. See 
Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
5. Peer Review 
The petitioner also claims her peer review for contributes to establishing she has 
made contributions of major significance in her field. The evidence related to this claim consists of a 
letter dated November 15, 2013 from the journal's Editor-in-Chief, l Dr. indicates 
that the journal maintains a pool of experts and continues: 
[The petitioner] has been selected as a reviewer of this journal for her expertise in the field 
of ·- - · -
' . 
due to inhibition 
of N-glycosylation pathway. Her expertise was demonstrated in her publication in 
in 2011 ... as a first author. 
Dr. does not indicate that retained the petitioner to perform peer review 
because she had made contributions of major significance in her field. Nor has the petitioner explained 
how her reviewing the work of her peers constitutes a contribution of major significance in her field, 
other than to assert that highly regarded journals would not select her to review articles were it not for 
her expertise and her renown. This assertion is not persuasive evidence that the petitioner has made a 
significant impact in her field. We have already considered this evidence under the judging criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). Meeting that criterion does not create a presumption that the petitioner also 
meets the contributions criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). It is the petitioner's burden to 
demonstrate how that evidence is also relevant to this criterion. The petitioner has not established that 
every research scientist that an editor selects to review manuscripts submitted for publication to a peer­
reviewed journal, must have made or is, by completing the reviews, making significant contributions to 
their field as anticipated by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
Regarding the remaining evidence of the petitioner's peer review duties, only the letter from 
Editor of _ indicates that the petitioner's selection as a reviewer was based 
on the petitioner's contributions. Dr. states: "The selection of reviewers is based on their 
renowned and contribution in the field of _ ." Dr. did not, however, state the extent to 
which such contributions must impact the field or otherwise detail how the editors select reviewers. 
Therefore, this conclusory letter is not sufficient evidence to demonstrate that this journal requires 
contributions commensurate with this criterion's requirements, or that the petitioner's selection as a peer 
reviewer for this publication should be considered beyond the judging criterion at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). More specifically, merely repeating the language of the statute or regulations does 
not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 
(E.D.N.Y. 1989), 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., 745 F. Supp. at 15. 
6. Published Material 
Dr. also noted the petitioner's publication record, indicating that she has presented 
her findings at several conferences, and that the is working on submitting the 
petitioner's invention to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. While each of these achievements is 
noteworthy, none constitutes a contribution of major significance in the petitioner's field. Regarding 
presentations at conferences, many professional fields regularly hold conferences and symposia to 
present new work, discuss new findings, and to network with other professionals. Professional 
associations, businesses, educational institutions, and government agencies promote and sponsor these 
conferences. Participation in such events, however, does not equate to an original contribution of major 
significance in the field as the petitioner has not demonstrated the impact of her presentations. In 
reference to the patent application, patents and patent applications by themselves do not serve as the 
measure of an individual's ability to qualify for this classification. Rather, the level of the impact in the 
field as a whole through the wide use of the innovation is a more appropriate measure to determine if an 
alien has sufficiently influenced her field. See Dep't. of Transp., 22 I&N Dec. 215, 221 (Assoc. 
Comm'r 1998). The petitioner has not established that the innovation the petitioner describes in her 
patent application has produced any measureable impact in her field. For example, the record contains 
no evidence of any independent research team expressing interest in licensing the patent. 
The petitioner also claims that her work was highlighted in two instances by "significant online media." 
The petitioner's work, 
_ ' appears in The 
online posting lists no author and refers to iriformation gathered from "[o]ur news journalists." The 
petitioner's appellate brief indicates that one form of media, ·'is ranked #2 in google pagerank 
among all Medical News websites, evidencing its reach and importance in the field. It is also ranked #2 
by pagerank among all Science publications in the area of Biology/Physiology and all news and media 
for the Pharmaceutical industry as well." The petitioner submitted the portion of the 
website itself rather than published circulation statistics from an official or independent 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
publicly available source. The record lacks evidence from Google or any other website ranking service. 
USCIS need not rely on the self-promotional material of the publisher. Cf Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06 
5105 SJO (C. D. CA July 6, 2007) aff'd 317 F. App'x 680 (9th Cir. 2009) (concluding that the AAO did 
not have to rely on self-serving assertions on the covet of a magazine as to the magazine's status as 
major media). Regardless, nothing in the record suggests that limits its coverage to 
contributions of major significance; rather than serving as an online source for pooling a large number 
of summaries of recent medical research. Moreover, the posting itself does not evaluate the work or its 
significance; rather, it reiterates what the authors reported and concluded and refers readers to the first 
author, not the petitioner, for further information. 
Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the 
burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998) 
(citing Matter ofTreasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). Regardless of 
the reach of the media outlet, the fact that any media summarized without evaluating the petitioner's 
work as part of its production of weekly health information does not demonstrate that her work is a 
contribution of major significance in the field. There is no documentary evidence establishing that the 
posting is probative of the petitioner's influence on others in the field. 
On appeal, the petitioner references an unpublished AAO decision asserting that the discussion of the 
contributions criterion in that case is relevant to her case. While 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c) provides that AAO 
precedent decisions are binding on all USCIS employees in the administration of the Act, unpublished 
decisions are not similarly binding. We may consider the reasoning within the unpublished decision; 
however, the analysis does not have to be followed as a matter of law. The petitioner claims that, like 
her research, the unpublished case involves a basic researcher. Referencing this unpublished case, the 
petitioner states: "Clearly the AAO agrees that the impact must be 
shown to the research field (for a 
researcher) and NOT to another field or to a specific application of the work." (Emphasis in the 
original). The petitioner has not submitted probative evidence that research itself is a field in which she 
may make contributions of major significance in order to qualify under this criterion. Regardless, the 
petitioner has not demonstrated her impact on other researchers. Merely adding to the general pool of 
knowledge is inherent to the field of basic research and is not, by itself, indicative of a contribution of 
major significance in basic or applied research. 
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has stated 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 
Matter of M-D-, 21 I&N Dec. 1180 (BIA 1998); Matter ofY-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998); Matter 
of Dass, 20 I&N Dec. 120 (BIA 1989); see also Matter of Acosta, 19 I&N Dec. 211, 218 (BIA 1985)). 
The Board clarified, however: "We not only encourage, but require the introduction of corroborative 
testimonial and documentary evidence, where available." Matter of S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. at 1332. 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. at 1136. 
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, 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9
1
h Cir. 2009) aff'd in part 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). In 2010, the Kazarian 
court reiterated 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. The opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and have been considered 
above. While such letters can provide important details about the petitioner's skills, they cannot form 
the cornerstone of a successful extraordinary ability claim. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as 
advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 
19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final 
determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. !d. The submission of letters from 
experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the 
content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795; see also Matter 
of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be 
evidence as to "fact"). USCIS may even give less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated, in 
accord with other information or is in any way questionable . !d. at 795; see also Matter of Soffici, 
22 I&N Dec. at 165 (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. at 190). Thus, the 
content of the writers' statements and how they became aware of the petitioner's reputation are 
important considerations. While letters authored in support of the petition have probative value, they 
are most persuasive when supported by evidence that already existed independently in the public 
sphere. 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). 
Considering the evidence the petitioner presents to corroborate her claims under this criterion, even 
when considered in the aggregate, the petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate 
that she has made improvements that are tantamount to contributions of major significance in her field 
as a whole. As such, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language 
requirements of this criterion. 
B. Summary 
The petitioner has not satisfied the antecedent regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. 
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. 
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 ofexpertise 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. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 14 
§ 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. 3 Rather, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner, proposing to work as a postdoctoral 
fellow,4 has not satisfied the antecedent regulatory requirement of three types of evidence . Id. 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. at 128. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3 The AAO maintains de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.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). 
4 
The director noted the petitioner's employment as a postdoctoral researcher and noted that the National Science 
Foundation defines the postdoctoral research position as "a temporary and defined period of mentored advanced 
training to enhance the professional skills and research independence needed to pursue his or her chosen career 
path." The director questioned how the petitioner can meet the requirements of the regulation in that she has 
attained "a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the 
very top of the field of erideavor" if she currently occupies, and intends to remain in, a training position prior to 
pursuing her career path. The petitioner did not address the director's concern regarding her level of employment 
on appeal. Notably, the petitioner's references include journal editors, a former division head at the 
members of grant review 
committees, an elected whose work has been cited more than 
3,400 times, and an elected . Thus, the top of 
the petitioner's field is considerably higher than the level she has achieved.