dismissed EB-1A Case: Sciences

(b)(6)
DATE: JUN 2 6 2015 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
FILE#: 
PETITION RECEIPT#: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. , MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
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: 
Enclosed is the non-precedent decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) for your case. 
If you believe we incorrectly decided your case, you may file a motion requesting us to reconsider our decision 
and/or reopen the proceeding. The requirements for motions are located at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Motions must be 
filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) within 33 days of the date of this decision. The Form I-
290B web page (www.uscis.gov/i-290b) contains the latest information on fee, filing location, and other 
requirements. Please do not mail any motions directly to the AAO. 
Thank you, 
~~· 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
REV 3/2015 www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal 
will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in the sciences, pursuant to 
section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A), which 
makes visas available to aliens who can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained 
national or international acclairll and whose achievements have been recognized in their field through 
extensive documentation. The director determined that the petitioner had not satisfied the initial 
evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3), which requires documentation of a one-time 
achievement or evidence that meets at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a brief in support of his appeal. For the reasons discussed below, we 
agree that the petitioner has not established his eligibility for the exclusive classification 
sought. Specifically, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence of a one-time achievement 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), or evidence that satisfies at least three of the ten regulatory 
criteria set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). As such, the petitioner has not 
demonstrated that he is one of the small percentage who are at the very top in the field of endeavor, 
and that he has sustained national or international acclaim. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), 
(3). Accordingly, we will dismiss the petitioner's appeal. 
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 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
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.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitiOner can 
demonstrate the petitioner's sustained acclaim and the recognition of the petitioner's achievements in 
the field through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized 
award). If the petitioner does not submit this evidence, then a petitioner must submit sufficient 
qualifying evidence that meets at least three of the ten categories of evidence listed at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
The submission of evidence relating to at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, 
establish eligibility for this classification. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) 
(discussing a two-part review where the evidence is first counted and then, if satisfying the required 
number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination). See also Rijal v. USCIS, 
772 F.Supp.2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011) (affirming USCIS' proper application of Kazarian), aff'd, 683 
F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F.Supp.3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013) (finding that 
USCIS appropriately applied the two-step review); Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 
(AAO 2010) (holding that the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by 
its quality" and that USCIS examines "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and 
credibility, both individually and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine 
whether the fact to be proven is probably true"). 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
We have reviewed all of the evidence the petitioner has submitted and will address those criteria the 
petitioner claims to meet or for which the petitioner has submitted relevant and probative evidence. The 
petitioner did not discuss the criteria at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3)(i) and (ii), respectively pertaining to lesser 
nationally or internationally recognized awards and memberships in associations that require 
outstanding achievements of their members. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that he did submit 
evidence of poster awards and professional memberships. Regarding his awards, he does not indicate 
or document that they are nationally or internationally recognized; rather, he discusses them as relevant 
to the contributions criterion at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3)(v). Accordingly, we will address them under that 
criterion. As the petitioner did not indicate that the associations of which he is a member require 
outstanding achievements of their members and did not provide the bylaws or other official 
documentation of the associations' membership requirements, we will not further address the 
membership criterion under the criterion at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page4 
Evidence of the alien's participation , either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an allied field of specification for which classification is sought. 
The director determined the petitioner met the requirements of this criterion. The petitioner has 
submitted sufficient evidence, including evidence he reviewed manuscripts for multiple journals, to 
establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
The plain language of this regulatory criterion contains multiple evidentiary elements that the petitioner 
must satisfy. The first is evidence of the petitioner's contributions in his field. These contributions 
must have already been realized rather than being potential, future contributions. The petitioner must 
also demonstrate that his contributions are original. The evidence must establish that the contributions 
are scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related in nature. The final requirement is that the 
contributions rise to the level of major significance in the field as a whole, rather than to a project or to 
an organization. The 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. On appeal, 
the petitioner questions the director's concern that some of the petitioner's references characterize him 
as "young" and use prospective language to describe the benefits of the petitioner's work. Three of the 
letters that reference the petitioner as a "young scientist" or "young physician scientist" do not use the 
term to qualify the significance of the petitioner's accomplishments. Specifically, they do not suggest 
that the petitioner's record is only notable in comparison with other young scientists. Accordingly, we 
concur with the petitioner that the use of that word by these three references is not a relevant 
consideration in this matter. Nevertheless, one of the references states: "Very few young scientists in 
this field can make so many achievements within several years." While a young scientist is not 
precluded from meeting this criterion, merely being prolific in comparison with other "young scientists" 
does not demonstrate the impact of the petitioner's work in the field as a whole. 
Further, we agree with the petitioner that the statute requires that the petitioner's admission as a lawful 
permanent resident will benefit the United States. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(iii) of the Act. 
Accordingly, a discussion that explains the future benefit of the petitioner's work addresses a statutory 
requirement and does not undermine other evidence that might demonstrate the petitioner's qualifying 
contributions as of the filing date. That said, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires that the petitioner have already made contributions of major significance in the 
field. Accordingly, evidence that focuses on the future benefits of the petitioner's work without 
explaining how he has already impacted the field at a level consistent with a contribution of m;1jor 
significance in the field, while relevant to the classification, is not sufficient to meet this criterion. 
Notably, the petitioner is the beneficiary of an approved petition seeking a national interest waiver of 
the job offer in the advanced degree classification pursuant to section 203(b )(2) of the Act. The instant 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
petition, however, seeks a higher preference, and this criterion requires more than a showing that the 
petitioner's entry will be in the national interest. Specifically, under this criterion, the petitioner must 
demonstrate an impact in the field consistent with contributions of major significance in the field. The 
petitioner identifies several expert letters he asserts demonstrate his eligibility under this criterion, 
which we will address below. 
The petitioner asserts the letter from Dr. Professor of Surgery at the _ 
indicates that he has already made an impact in his field. Dr. does not indicate that he was aware 
of the petitioner's work prior to the petitioner's request for a reference letter. Rather, he indicates that 
he drafted the letter based on his review of the petitioner's curriculum vitae and his published work. Dr. 
generally discusses the petitioner's published works, the rankings of the journals in which the 
petitioner's work is published, and the petitioner's conference presentations. Dr. identifies the 
petitioner's discovery of how to reduce damage to livers stored for transplant surgery, specifically the 
applications of inhibitor. Dr. characterizes this work as a 
breakthrough in the field, noting that it appeared in the _ _ __ in 2012 and asserting that 
it has been "wildly cited" by other researchers from around the world. We will discuss the petitioner's 
citation record in general below. With respect to the petitioner's 2012 article in the . 
_ the record establishes only that it has been moderately cited. The citations themselves 
acknowledge the implications of the petitioner's work, but do not either build upon his work as the 
foundation of their own work or, in the case of review articles, report his findings as more significant 
than the other numerous studies mentioned in the review. While Dr. asserts that the finding the 
petitioner reported in his 2012 article "is a breakthrough in the field," his support for that statement is 
that the work "will have a great impact on developing therapeutics to improve outcome after 
transplantation of cardiac death donors." Predictions of a future impact cannot demonstrate that the 
petitioner's work has already had an impact consistent with a contribution of major significance . 
Dr. further asserts that the petitioner's micro-surgical technique has helped him contribute 
significantly to his field. While the petitioner may be skilled in certain techniques, at issue is how he 
has impacted the field by using those techniques. Dr. also asserts that due to the petitioner's 
significant contributions in his field, he was invited to review and evaluate the work of his peers in 
international journals. We have already considered the petitioner's review experience under th~ judging 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). The record does not contain evidence that any journal in which 
the petitioner performs peer review, selected the petitioner based primarily or solely on his significant 
contributions in the field. In fact, the petitioner has not submitted evidence relating to the selection 
criteria for peer review relating to any journal on record. 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 of 
Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). Further, that Dr. Wang 
characterizes the petitioner's status in the field using 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. 
v. Att'y Gen, 745 F. Supp. 9, 17 (D.D.C. 1990). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
Next, the petitioner points to the letter from Dr. , Associate Research Fellow at 
Dr. does not indicate that she was aware of the petitioner's work prior to reviewing his reswne and 
a number of his publications, and she indicates that she crafted her assessment and evaluation of the 
petitioner's work based on these items. The petitioner selected a statement from Dr. closing 
paragraph in which she indicates the petitioner's discoveries and achievements are widely recognized. 
She also states: "(The petitioner's] research findings have given rise to a great impact on the 
development of the field that he has been involved in." As stated above, USCIS need not accept 
primarily conclusory assertions. 1756, Inc., 745 F. Supp. at 17. The petitioner does not however, point 
to any examples within Dr. letter in which she describes how the petitioner's contributions in the 
field have already come to fruition and are of major significance to the field as a whole. Dr. 
discusses how the petitioner's skills are essential, how his discoveries contribute to the knowledge 
within the field, as well as his awards, memberships, and peer review duties. However, she does not 
identify any independent researchers who have utilized the petitioner's work in their own studies or 
explain how the petitioner's work has already impacted new research. She does not suggest that she or 
has utilized the petitioner's work. 
Dr. , the petitioner's mentor and a Professor of Microbiology and Immunology at 
the states that the petitioner "has contributed substantially to the 
transplantation research field." Although Dr. indicates the petitioner has already 
significant! y impacted the field through his work, Dr. does not provide examples of how the 
petitioner's work is already affecting the field such that it is of major significance in the field as a 
whole. For example, after stating the petitioner has made original scientific contributions of major 
significance in the field of transplantation research, Dr. ' describes the petitioner's findings as 
having "the potential to dramatically reduce the steroid side effects ... " and that it "may lead to 
significant health and economic benefits for the United States." Here Dr. provides a 
prospective benefit of the petitioner's work rather explaining how his work has already made a 
significant difference within the field as a whole. As stated above, while a prospective benefit is a 
relevant consideration for the classification as a whole, to meet this criterion, the petitioner must 
establish how he has already impacted the field. Dr. continues with a discussion of the 
petitioner's original findings and skills. That the petitioner's discoveries are original and have the 
potential to be significant within the field is not sufficient to demonstrate that the petitioner's 
contributions have already made a significant impact. Ultimately, Dr. has not identified an 
impact in the field commensurate with a contribution of major significance in the field. 
Within the appeal brief, the petitioner also identifies the letter from Dr. Assistant 
Professor of Surgery at Dr. discusses the petitioner's 
"breakthrough finding" that he reported in his 2012 article in the. and indicates 
this article ranks in the top one percent of cited literature in the biomedical field and has been discussed 
in six high impact journal review articles. The petitioner did not submit evidence to support Dr. 
claims relating to the ranking of the petitioner's article. Two of the articles by others listed in 
the Google Scholar results the petitioner provided have been cited 40 and 81 times, far more than any 
one of the petitioner's articles. Dr. concludes: "It is common knowledge that only those 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
contributions which make significant progress in their field are selected by world-class scientists in their 
professional review articles." Dr. does not explain this conclusion in light of the fact that some 
of the review articles that cite the petitioner's work cite his work as one of among at least 140 or 150 
other articles. Dr. further notes that a handbook chapter cited the petitioner's 2012 article and 
the journal featured this work as presented at a 2010 conference. The handbook cites the 
petitioner's work as recently identifying a role for but doesn't suggest that this role has already 
impacted the field. The report "highlights selected presentations" at a conference, which does 
not demonstrate the impact of the petitioner's work after dissemination in the field. A breakthrough that 
has the likely potential to impact the field at some future time is not sufficient to demonstrate eligibility 
under this criterion. Dr. also praises the petitioner's publication record, but does not describe 
how publishing in professional journals constitutes a contribution of major significance to the field as a 
whole; rather the issue is the impact of his work after dissemination at conferences and in print. In his 
closing paragraphs, Dr. states the petitioner's "work has had significant impacts in the field of 
transplantation and IR injury per se." Dr. then discusses the petitioner's poster presentation 
awards, conference presentations, peer review, and membership representing these as being the result of 
the petitioner's important contributions in the transplantation field. Dr. does not, however, 
explain how these professional activities demonstrate the petitioner's actual impact in the field as a 
whole. 
The petitioner further relies on the letter from Dr. Associate Professor at the 
in whose laboratory the petitioner worked. ·Dr. states the 
petitioner's work relating to the reestablishment of blood circulation in organs "is groundbreaking 
because it is leading to the generation of a novel therapy for. ischemia injuries involved in 
transplantation." A reasoned expectation that the petitioner's work is leading to a novel therapy is not 
sufficient to meet this criterion's requirements that the contributions already have come to fruition. Dr. 
also states that the petitioner's work studying the livers of animals is extraordinary because it is 
original, has been published in a drug discovery journal, and has been cited by other scientists. That the 
petitioner has produced original work that other scientists have referenced is not, by itself, indicative of 
a contribution of major significance. Dr. does not describe how the petitioner's work relating to 
animal livers has made an impact in the field at large. Her comments indicate that the petitioner has 
added to the general pool of knowledge, but falls short of indicating that the recognition of his work is 
widespread throughout the field. While she asserts that is a journal that "reports important 
breakthroughs in drug discovery," the conference report itself states that it is simply highlighting 
selected presentations at a conference. The petitioner focuses on the portion of Dr. letter in 
which she credits the petitioner's work as having supported her receipt of a National Institutes of Health 
grant. Dr. indicates that this grant enabled her team to perform research that was published in a 
highly respected scientific journal. That the petitioner's research team built on his past work with that 
team does not demonstrate his impact in the wider field. Dr. does not describe how this research 
has affected the field as a whole, and as such, her letter does not satisfy this criterion's requirements. 
Dr. Associate Professor at 
indicates the petitioner's work relating to organ donations from cardiac death donors (CDD) 
was published in a leading journal in the field and is "critically important because researchers have been 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
trying for many years to use marginal donor livers from CDD, to provide an important solution to 
alleviate the critical shortage of donor organs." Dr. continues stating: "[The petitioner's] 
discovery serves to expand the donor pool and has· a profound impact on basic biomedical science and 
clinical medicine." While Dr. describes how the petitioner's fmdings resulted in a Poster of 
Distinction Award, he has not established that the petitioner's discovery has already expanded the donor 
pool. Nor does Dr. support his assertion by explaining how the petitioner's findings have had a 
profound impact on biomedical and clinical medicine. It is not sufficient for experts to make general 
assertions . relating to the petitioner 's impact within the field without also providing details of the 
petitioner's actual influence. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not 
sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N 
Dec. at 165. 
Dr. also discusses the petitioner's work in the area of ischemia, or blood restoration in organs 
during transplant surgery. Dr. characterizes the petitioner's findings as widely cited, original, a 
significant contribution, and as critically important. He does not, however, provide analysis of how this 
discovery has already resulted in marked improvements within the field. In fact, Dr. _ states: 
"The entire 
biomedical field, including my laboratory, can benefit from this original finding." Had the 
petitioner's findings already made a significant impact within the field, Dr. should be able to 
describe such an impact beyond publication in respected journals and moderate citation by others in the 
field. 
The petitioner also identifies the letter from Dr. , Assistant Professor in the Department 
of Biology at the in Saudi Arabia. Dr. ' describes the petitioner's findings 
relating to ischemia in organ transplants and indicates the response (citations) to the petitioner's articles 
demonstrate that his "work in this area is already in the process of being translated into a novel therapy 
to reduce ischemia reperfusion injury and improve graft and patient survival." Dr. does not 
identify a laboratory that is translating his work into a novel therapy to reduce ischemia and does not 
indicate that her own work has been impacted by the petitioner's work. Accordingly, she has not 
supported her assertion that the petitioner's work has significantly contributed to transplantation 
research . 
The petitioner generally asserts within the appeal brief: "Many of the letters submitted in the original 
petition and in the response to the RFE contain detailed description [sic] of what the petitioner's 
contributions are and how his contribution has impacted the field." The petitioner subsequently 
provides names of multiple experts who submitted reference letters on his behalf without identifying 
any of the petitioner's contributions of major significance that each expert may have identified. The 
information in these letters is comparable to the information in the letters discussed above. 
Within the appeal brief, the petitioner disagrees with the director's determination that it is not unusual 
within the petitioner's occupation for other researchers to reference his findings. The petitioner asserts 
that one of the most significant ways for determining whether research has impacted and influenced the 
field is whether it has been helpful and used by other researchers. The director did not disagree with 
this position; rather he indicated within the decision that the petitioner had not demonstrated his work 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
has been heavily cited or widely implemented. The director noted the number of citations the 
petitioner's work has garnered as of the time of petition filing, and determined that such a moderate 
citation record did not demonstrate that the petitioner had sufficiently impacted the field through his 
research findings. The petitioner has not demonstrated that the director erred in this determination. The 
petitioner has not established that his moderate citation record at the time he filed the petition is 
representative of one who has significantly influenced the field. 
The petitioner also indicates the director did not consider all of the evidence. Specifically, the petitioner 
identifies Dr. :letter and the petitioner's published work titled,' 
' Dr. : letter 
discusses the petitioner's work related to the effects of a lead compound on animal livers 
after it is damaged by ischemia reperfusion, and asserts that the petitioner's published work is utilized 
as a reference article in the description of this lead compound. The petitioner asserts that this evidence 
"not only shows that the petitioner's work has already impacted the field, but also demonstrates the 
major significance of his work." The record contains two of three pages printed from 
. which cites the petitioner's work pertaining to a product "for 
research use only. Not for human use." The petitioner has not demonstrated the field's use of this 
product in research, only its availability on a website. As discussed above, Dr. did not 
sufficiently identify how the petitioner's work in this area has impacted the field at large. 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 inAPWUv. Potter, 343 F.3d 619,626 (2nd 
Cir. Sep 15, 2003). 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, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 
135-136. 
Additional evidence the petitioner indicates was not considered relates to professional media coverage 
of his research. This classification has a specific criterion relating to published material about the 
petitioner, relating to his work in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). We will not presume that 
evidence relating to or even meeting the published material 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 published material and original contributions of major significance, 
USCIS clearly does not view the two as being interchangeable. Published news articles are not 
sufficient evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that they are indicative of 
contributions of major significance. Cf Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009) aff'd in 
part 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). In 2010, the Kazarian court 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. 
The article from is an abstract of an article in which the petitioner served as coauthor. The 
petitioner has not provided any information relating to the reach and importance of this website within 
his field. As such, this media coverage is insufficient to demonstrate the petitioner's eligibility under 
this criterion. The petitioner also identifies his work as having been reported in · which is a 
journal reporting important breakthroughs in drug discovery." The petitioner indicates evidence of this 
·-· ------- - - . ---------- -------------------------
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
media coverage exists within the RFE response. The petitioner provided a version of 
the _ Conference Report relating to He has not, however, provided 
any information relating to the journal nor has he provided information relating to the 2010 
conference to which the Conference Report relates. As stated above, the report itself does not indicate 
that it is a journal that reports important breakthroughs in drug discovery; rather it plainly states that it is 
a conference report highlighting selected presentations at a single conference. 
The petitioner's final point is that the director did not consider that the petitioner won the Poster of 
Distinction Award at ~ multiple times. The petitioner asserts these awards 
demonstrate the high quality and the field's recognition of his work. The evidence initially submitted 
reflects that having your presentation selected as a Poster of Distinction means that the petitioner's 
poster was within the top ten percent of abstracts selected for poster presentation. The petitioner has not 
documented the manner in which this conference is influential in his field, nor has he shown that his 
poster presentations actually had some impact in the field after dissemination; for example, through 
citations to his presentations at the conference. Some of the expert letters reference the petitioner's 
poster presentations at conferences, describing the stature of the conferences. The record, however, 
lacks probative evidence that corroborates the assertions within the letters. Going on record without 
supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
The petitioner also submitted evidence that his work has been cited by researchers from multiple 
countries and posits these citations demonstrate the global influence of his work. That citations to his 
work are international in origin demonstrates that his findings are noted within the field in more than 
one country, but falls short of demonstrating a sufficient influence within the field as a whole. Citations 
by researchers in multiple countries are not demonstrative of a contribution of major significance when 
the citation level for individual articles is moderate. 
Although the petitioner claims that citations to his work demonstrate a contribution of major 
significance, he has not demonstrated that the number of citations is significant or that a notable number 
of the citing authors placed unusual reliance on his work. The petitioner stated within the initial filing 
that his papers have been extensively discussed and others have positively commented on his work, and 
that these are more than just mere footnotes or mentions. He did not however, provide examples 
detailing how other researchers placed heavy reliance on his work to support their own findings. It is 
insufficient for the petitioner to assert such an influence within the field without also supporting this 
assertion with specific examples. 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. atl65. 
Reviewing the evidence on record does not bear out the petitioner's assertion relating to other 
researchers extensively discussing and positively commenting on his published work. For example, 
within the paper titled, " 
...::.....__c:c__-= -
" the authors cite to the petitioner's work along with two other 
published works. This citation is not an example of others in the petitioner's field extensively 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
discussing and positively commenting on one of his papers. Rather it is an example of other 
researchers, referencing the petitioner's findings when analyzing the effect of ischemia on organs. Not 
every researcher who performs moderately valuable research and receives a reference to his work has 
inherently made a contribution of major significance to the field, as this activity is inherent to the 
petitioner's occupation. An additional example is within the paper titled, " 
'' in which the 
petitioner's work is cited among four other published works. This level of reliance is also not 
representative of the field extensively discussing and positively commenting on one of his papers. 
Regarding the remaining expert letters that express confidence in the petitioner's skills, abilities, and 
stature within his field, it is not enough to be skillful and knowledgeable and to have others a:ttest to 
those talents. The petitioner must have demonstrably impacted his field in order to meet this regulatory 
criterion. See 8 C.P.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(v); see also Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134. The reference letters 
submitted by the petitioner discuss his activities, but they do not provide specific examples of how the 
petitioner's work has significantly impacted the field at large or otherwise constitutes original 
contributions of major significance. 
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, detai.l, 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, 
580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (91h eir. 2009) aff'd in part 596 F.3d 1115 (9th eir. 2010). In 2010, the Kazarian 
court reiterated the conclusion that "letters from physics professors attesting to [the petitioner'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. users 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, USeiS is ultimately responsible for making the final 
determination regarding the petitioner's eligibility for the benefit sought. !d. The submission of letters 
from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; users may evaluate the 
content of those letters as to whether they support the petitioner'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" but rather is admissible only if it will assist the trier of fact to 
understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue). users 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 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
795; see also Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165; see also Visinscaia, 4 F.Supp.3d at 134-35 
(concluding that USCIS' decision to give limited weight to uncorroborated assertions from practitioners 
in the field was not arbitrary and capricious). 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. Such independent evidence might include but is not limited to 
letters from independent industry experts with firsthand knowledge of the petitioner's impact in the 
field, meaningful media coverage, and widespread citations to the petitioner's work. 
Therefore, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets this criterion's requirements. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The director determined the petitioner met the requirements of this criterion. The petitioner has 
submitted sufficient evidence, including multiple published articles in the requisite publication types, 
to establish that he meets this criterion. 
B. Summary 
For the reasons discussed above, we agree with the Director that the petitioner has not submitted the 
requisite initial evidence, in this case, evidence that satisfies three of the ten regulatory criteria. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the petitioner has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of his or her 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 of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the 
very top of the field of endeavor," and (2) "that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. As the petitioner has not done so, the 
proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of 
presenting evidence that satisfied the initial evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3) 
and (4). Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1122. Nevertheless, although we need not provide the type of final 
merits determination referenced in Kazarian, a review of the evidence in the aggregate supports a 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
finding that the petitioner has not demonstrated the level of expertise required for the classification 
sought. 1 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of 
Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, the petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
1 We maintain de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. United States Dep 't of Justice, 381 
F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). In any future proceeding, we maintain the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits 
determination as the office that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(ii); see also INA 
§§ 103(a)(1), 204(b); DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 C.F.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).